Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02061/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02061-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS MAGANA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2061 DFL KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

MAIN JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On January 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an order directing the jail to release his

medical records to him. An examination of plaintiff’s February 24, 2005 filing suggests he has

received the records, for many such records are attached to this filing. 

On January 20, 2005, plaintiff filed an “Amended Memorandum and Exhibits.” 

Defendants have filed an opposition to this document, arguing that it is substantially the same as

the “Request For Court Order To Wear Supporting Type Shoes,” which the court rejected in

findings and recommendations filed November 18, 2004, adopted by the district court on January

24, 2005. Plaintiff has not explained why he filed this document. 

//////

Case 2:03-cv-02061-JKS-KJM Document 62 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

According to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion “shall

state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.” The

rule’s “particularity requirement” is designed “to give notice of the basis for the motion to the

court and the opposing party so as to avoid prejudice, ‘providing that party with a meaningful

opportunity to respond and the court with enough information to process the motion correctly.’” 

Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc, 336 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s filing

does not satisfy this standard, for it lacks sufficient information to permit the court “to process

the motion correctly.” This court does not have a duty to “sort[] through irrelevant submissions.” 

Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 123 n.2 (D. Md. 1981). 

Although the court is mindful of plaintiff’s pro se status and its obligation to

construe pro se pleadings leniently, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1978), a pro se

plaintiff must nevertheless “adhere to the rudimentary dictates of civil procedure.” Holsey,

90 F.R.D. at 125. Plaintiff has failed to do so. Moreover, such pleadings are not helpful to

litigation of this matter and simply clog up the court’s docket. Plaintiff is cautioned that further

pleadings may be limited if plaintiff continues to file extraneous pleadings that are not germane

to issues pending before the court. If plaintiff has evidentiary material he wishes to submit to the

court, then such evidence should be submitted as exhibits to properly filed amendments to the

complaint, as exhibits to properly noticed motions or opposition, or as exhibits at trial. It is not

proper to filed an amended memorandum when no motion is pending. Accordingly, the filing of

January 20, 2005, will be disregarded. 

 On February 24, 2005, plaintiff filed “Affidavit, Statements and New Exhibits In

Support Of Amended Complaint And/Or Deposition.” Once an answer has been filed, a party

may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). An answer was filed on July 30, 2004. Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to

amend nor a stipulation to amend the complaint signed by all parties. Plaintiff’s “Affidavit,

Statements And New Exhibits In Support Of Amended Complaint” therefore will be stricken,

Case 2:03-cv-02061-JKS-KJM Document 62 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

and this action will proceed on the amended complaint filed February 17, 2004. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s January 3, 2005 request for an order directing the release of his

medical records (docket # 43) is denied as moot;

2. Plaintiff’s filing of January 20, 2005 (docket #45) is denied for failure to

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b); and

3. Plaintiff’s February 24, 2005 affidavit (docket # 50) is stricken from the record

and will be disregarded. 

DATED: May 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

maga2061.7

Case 2:03-cv-02061-JKS-KJM Document 62 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 3