Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON G. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F CV F 03 6835 REC LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INCLUDE

DOCUMENTS (Doc. 30) 

 Byron G. Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on

November 14, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The action was

transferred to this Court on December 4, 2003. 

On April 2, 2004, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend finding that

Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Director of the California Department of Corrections

or the Warden of Avenal State Prison, wherein the allegations in the Complaint arose. Plaintiff

filed an Amended Complaint on May 3, 2004.

The Court dismissed the Complaint for the second time on July 15, 2005. Plaintiff filed a

Second Amended Complaint on August 12, 2005. On June 6, 2006, the Court dismissed the

Complaint again and Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 19, 2006. This

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 31 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Complaint is pending review by the Court. 

On February 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Include documents where he requests

that the Court add the attached documents to “claim.” Plaintiff states that the attached

documents explain his excessive force claim. 

Plaintiff’s request is denied. Generally, it is not necessary to attach exhibits to a

complaint. See Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the Court cannot serve as a

repository for the parties' evidence. Originals or copies of evidence (i.e., prison or medical

records, witness affidavits, etc.) should not be submitted until the course of litigation brings the

evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when

requested by the court). At this point, the submission of evidence is premature as the Plaintiff is

only required to state a prima facie claim for relief. 

Finally, even were the submission of evidence at this stage in the litigation proper,

because all documents submitted by the Plaintiff are electronically scanned and kept in the

docketing system in electronic form, it is not possible to remove copies from one pleading and

“attach” them to another. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Attach the submitted documents to Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 31 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2