Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00140/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00140-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANE MYRON REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0140 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 12, 2015, plaintiff’s 191-page complaint was dismissed, and 

plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On March 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a 

request for court order allowing plaintiff to make legal copies in excess of 50 pages. Plaintiff 

states that he “has complied [sic] documentation regarding the declaration of perjury and 

additional exhibits for the original petition [sic], over 167-pages.” (ECF No. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff 

contends that Mrs. Heaslip told plaintiff that he must have a court order to obtain copies over 50 

pages long. (ECF No. 1-2.) 

The regulation in question is Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3162. 

Subsection (c) provides: “(c) A legal document to be duplicated for any inmate, including all 

exhibits and attachments, shall be limited to the maximum number of pages needed for the filing, 

Case 2:15-cv-00140-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 03/19/15 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

not to exceed 50 pages in total length, except when necessary to advance litigation. The inmate

shall provide to designated staff a written explanation of the need for excess document length.” 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3162(c).

In his original complaint, plaintiff submitted 181 pages of exhibits. (ECF No. 1 at 10-

191.) In the March 12, 2015 order, plaintiff was informed that he was not required to re-submit 

his exhibits with his amended complaint, and that exhibits previously submitted may be referred 

to by any party. (ECF No. 17 at 7.) Indeed, the practice of attaching reams of documents to a 

complaint usually does not aid the court in any way, and instead “needlessly complicates 

challenges to the sufficiency of pleadings.” Montgomery v. Buege, 2009 WL 1034518 at *4 

(E.D. Cal. April 16, 2009) (Shubb, J.) (striking attached exhibits which “do not form the basis of 

the claims alleged in the Complaint.”).1 Plaintiff provided copies of administrative appeals to his 

original pleading. However, non-exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense. Jones v. 

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204, 216 (2007). Thus, plaintiff is not required to prove exhaustion of 

administrative remedies in his initial pleading. In addition, the court is not a repository for 

plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff is required to submit evidence in connection with dispositive 

motions or at trial. Plaintiff is not required to submit evidence with his initial pleading. 

For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a court order allowing him to 

photocopy 167 pages is denied. Plaintiff did not indicate how long is his amended complaint, so 

it is unclear whether plaintiff needs a court order to photocopy his amended complaint and his 

accompanying declaration. However, prison officials should allow plaintiff to photocopy his 

amended complaint and declaration (without exhibits) pursuant to the March 12, 2015 order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 20) is denied 

without prejudice.

Dated: March 18, 2015

/reye0140.exhs

 

1

 Moreover, adding reams of exhibits to a complaint increases costs for service of process as each 

named defendant must be provided with one copy of the complete pleading.

Case 2:15-cv-00140-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 2