UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 8, 2011
STEPHEN C. REED,
C/O JAMES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD EXHIBITS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 16.)
Stephen C. Reed ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 14, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On November 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15.) On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to add exhibits from the original Complaint to the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.)
While exhibits to the complaint are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Plaintiff has not referred to any exhibits in the Amended Complaint. As a result, any exhibits attached to the Amended Complaint would not be incorporated by reference. Exhibits not incorporated by reference are impermissible and also would not serve any purpose. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to add exhibits to the Amended Complaint shall be denied.
Plaintiff is cautioned that it is not the duty of the court to look through all of Plaintiff's exhibits to determine whether or not he has stated a claim. The Court looks to the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. The Court strongly suggests that exhibits should not be submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2) they are intended as future evidence. If this action reaches a juncture at which the submission of evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the opportunity at that time to submit his evidence.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to add exhibits to the Amended Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.