UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 14, 2010
WILLIE LEE CARPENTER,
W. J. SULLIVAN, ET AL.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXHIBITS TO BE ENTERED ON THE DOCKET AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF REQUESTED (Doc. 86)
ORDER DENYING AS DUPLICATIVE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COPIES OF EXHIBITS (Doc. 85)
Plaintiff Willie Lee Carpenter ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2008. On October 1, 2010 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting copies of exhibits that Plaintiff states were submitted with his September 17, 2008 amended complaint. Attached to Plaintiff's October 1, 2010 motion is an affidavit attesting that Plaintiff had submitted exhibits "A" through "O" with his amended complaint on September 17, 2008. On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting for the above-mentioned exhibits to be entered on the Court's docket, for such exhibits to be marked and for copies of the exhibits to be sent to Plaintiff and Defendants. Attached to Plaintiff's October 18, 2010 motion is a copy of the exhibits he states were attached to his amended complaint.
After careful review of the electronic and paper documents on file, the exhibits that Plaintiff described in the amended complaint and referred to in Plaintiff's opposition to judgment on the pleadings were not in the Court's file. However, the Court now has received Plaintiff's exhibits titled "A" through "O" in Plaintiff's October 18th "motion for exhibits to be entered on the Court's docket."
Documents submitted with the complaint may be considered as part of the complaint for purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. V. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 (9th Cir. 1990). Further, the court may consider the full text of documents referred to in the complaint without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment, provided that the document is central to plaintiff's claim and no party questions the authenticity of the document. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). In light of the currently pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and in considering Plaintiff's affidavit submitted on October 1, 2010 stating that Plaintiff submitted attached exhibits "A" through "O" to the amended complaint, the Court will accept Plaintiff's copy submitted on October 18, 2010 and consider such exhibits as attached with the September 17, 2008 amended complaint. However, the Court will not mark the exhibits since it is unnecessary. Additionally, the court finds that the request in Plaintiff's motion filed on October 1, 2010, is duplicative of relief requested in Plaintiff's motion filed on October 18, 2010 and therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's October 1, 2010 motion (Doc. 85) for copies of exhibits.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's October 18, 2010 motion for exhibits to be entered on the Court's docket (Doc. 86) is GRANTED in part to the extent that the Court will consider the exhibits as attached to the September 2008 amended complaint and will order copies of exhibits to be sent to Plaintiff and Defendants;
2. Plaintiff's October 1, 2010 motion requesting copies of exhibits (Doc. 85) is DENIED as duplicative;
3. Plaintiff's request in his October 18, 2010 motion (Doc. 86) for the Court to mark exhibits is DENIED;
4. The Clerk's office is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff and Defendants a copy of exhibits "A" through "O" attached on Plaintiff's October 18, 2010 motion (Doc. 86); and
5. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, the Defendants are Directed to submit a statement to the Court indicating whether they wish to amend their motion for judgment on the pleadings and amend their reply in light of the recently docketed exhibits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.