Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05845/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05845-1/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

GREG JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MENDOZA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5845 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN EVIDENCE TO PLAINTIFF 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc.

13.) 

 Greg Johnson (“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 filed the instant action on June 115, 2004. On November 28, 2005, the Court

issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint on December 19, 2005. However, attached to the Amended Complaint are numerous

documents which are not referenced in the Amended Complaint and appear to be original

documents. 

It is inappropriate 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

Case 1:04-cv-05845-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 01/09/06 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

for relief. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to return the documents to

Plaintiff for safekeeping until such time as review by the Court is necessary. 

It appears that Plaintiff also filed a second Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on

December 19, 2005. However, the Court record reflects that Plaintiff’s first Motion was granted

on July 27, 2004. (Doc. 5.) Thus, the resubmission of a new Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis is unnecessary and will be denied as moot. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to RETURN the documentary evidence

attached to the Amended Complaint submitted on December 19, 2005, to

Plaintiff; 

2. The Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05845-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2