Christine Taylor v. Kern County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTINE TAYLOR, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01299-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENTS LODGED BY PLAINTIFF WITH THE COURT 13 v. Clerk of the Court to Return Lodged Documents 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S to Plaintiff DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Christine Taylor (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 18 this action with the filing of a complaint on October 2, 2025. (Doc. 1). On October 14, 2025, the 19 Clerk of the Court received from Plaintiff documents totaling 11 pages, appearing to consist of an 20 exhibit and witness list, County of Kern and Kern County Sheriff’s Office records, and 21 identification documents. 22 Discussion 23 Plaintiff provides no cover page nor any accompanying document explaining the purpose 24 for her transmittal of the documents. Thus, the Court will presume that Plaintiff intends said 25 documents to be accepted as exhibits to her complaint. 26 Plaintiff is permitted to attach exhibits to her complaint but they are not necessary pursuant 27 to the federal system of notice pleading. See Ruiz v. Orozco, No. 1:19-CV-00048-AWI-GSA PC, 2019 WL 13390488, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) & 10(c)). 1 Here, as in Ruiz, the Court “strongly suggests to Plaintiff that [exhibits] should not be 2 submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2) they are 3 intended as future evidence.” Id. If this action reaches a juncture at which the submission of 4 evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the 5 opportunity at that time to submit her evidence. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff is admonished that it is 6 not the duty of the Court to examine her exhibits to determine whether or not she presents 7 cognizable claims. The Court, instead, will analyze the factual allegations pled in Plaintiff’s 8 complaint to determine whether or not she has stated any cognizable claim for relief. See id. 9 Further, the documents Plaintiff purports to lodge with the Court appear to contain 10 significant amounts of sensitive and personal identifying information. Plaintiff is warned that, if 11 she chooses to file such evidence on the docket in the future without first requesting the Court to 12 seal said documents, she may waive any applicable confidentiality thereto, regardless of the 13 relevance of said documents to this action. See Thomas v. Carrasco, No. 1:04-CV-05793-MJS PC, 14 2010 WL 4024930, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2010), aff’d, 474 F. App’x 692 (9th Cir. 2012) 15 (collecting cases and explaining that privacy rights can be waived). 16 As the documents Plaintiff seeks to lodge with the Court consist of records containing 17 personal identifying information, which may serve to confuse the record and burden the Court and 18 are not required for the Court to screen Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court will return Plaintiff’s 19 documents. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to resubmit any such documents if submission 20 becomes appropriate in the future. Plaintiff’s complaint was received by the Court and will be 21 screened in due course. 22 23 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

24 25 26 27 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The documents lodged by Plaintiff with the Court on October 14, 2025, SHALL be 4 returned to Plaintiff; and 5 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return said documents to Plaintiff. 6 | ITIS SOORDERED. Dated: _ October 22, 2025 | hwrnrD Pr g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28