UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 23, 2010
RYAN A. BARBA, PLAINTIFF,
FERNANDO GONZALES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION (ECF No. 8)
Plaintiff Ryan Barba ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Documentation for the Sole Purpose of Verification; it asks the Court to receive four documents that Plaintiff alleges will "verify and solidify" his complaint. (ECF No. 8.)
Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence. At this stage in the litigation, the Court must presume that all plausible allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are true. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 597 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, no documentation is needed to support Plaintiff's allegations. If Plaintiff desires to amend his complaint to include information contained in the materials attached to the instant motion, he may do so at this time without leave of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1) ("A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course.")
As explained in the Court's First Informational Order, the parties may not file evidence with the Court 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). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was previously informed that improperly submitted evidence would be returned. (Id.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Documentation for the Sole Purpose of Verification is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to return the original motion and supporting documents to Plaintiff if they have not already been discarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.