Dietle
v.
McDonald

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, E.D. CaliforniaJan 6, 2010
No. CIV S-09-1142 KJM P. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2010)

No. CIV S-09-1142 KJM P.

January 6, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to add an additional defendant and additional exhibits to his complaint. On November 24, 2009, the court dismissed his complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Should plaintiff so choose, he may incorporate the materials referenced in his November 20th filing in his amended complaint, if such incorporation otherwise complies with the court's November 24th order and the applicable federal and local rules.

Plaintiff is cautioned to include all information necessarywith his amended complaint; should he continue to file materials not related to a pending motion or required by court order, he may be subject to sanctions, including dismissal. Kane Gas Light And Heating Company v. Penzoil Company, 587 F.Supp. 910 (W.D. Penn. 1984) (arguments and evidence not included in the appropriate pleading constitutes "sandbagging" and is not permissible); see King Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se plaintiff must follow rules of procedure).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to add a defendant and enter exhibits (docket no. 9) is denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to his action, in light of plaintiff's failure to return his consent form.