Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00304/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00304-2/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

FRANK HAFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. TAUNTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00304-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS

DUPLICATIVE OF PREVIOUSLY FILED

MOTION (Doc. 11)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS SEEKING LEAVE

TO FILE EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF

COMPLAINT, AND STRIKING EXHIBITS

ATTACHED TO MOTIONS (Docs. 13, 14, 15,

and 16)

Plaintiff Frank Hafer (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking the appointment of counsel. On April 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a second motion seeking the

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s April 3 motion shall be stricken from the record on the ground

that it is duplicative of a previously filed motion for relief. When plaintiff files a motion, he must

wait for the court’s ruling and should not file any further motions seeking the same relief as that

sought in a pending motion.

In addition to seeking the appointment of counsel, on April 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking leave to amend to add a party and exhibits, and three separate motions seeking leave to

amend to add exhibits to complaint. For the reasons set forth in the court’s order filed on April 4,

2006, plaintiff ‘s motion seeking leave to amend to add a party is unnecessary. Further, plaintiff may

Case 1:06-cv-00304-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 04/10/06 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

not add claims or parties piecemeal. If plaintiff wishes to amend, he must submit an amended

complaint that is complete within itself without reference to the original complaint.

With respect to exhibits, plaintiff may not submit exhibits to the court piecemeal and request

that they be included with his complaint. Plaintiff is not required to submit exhibits in support of

his complaint. However, if plaintiff chooses to do so, any exhibits submitted in support of the

complaint must be attached and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). There

shall be no exceptions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend shall be denied and the

exhibits attached thereto shall be stricken from the record.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed April 3, 2006, is STRICKEN

as duplicative; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions seeking leave to amend, filed April 3, 2006, are DENIED and the

exhibits attached thereto are STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00304-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2