Destino v. Centurion Medical Services

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

CLINT DESTINO,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 20-397 MV/GJF

CENTURION MEDICAL SERVICES et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Time Line [sic] Evidence [ECF 6] (Motion). Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. He filed the Motion in connection with his Civil Tort Complaint [ECF 1-2], which alleges prison officials provided inadequate medical care. Prisoner complaints against government officials are subject to sua sponte screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). If the allegations in the complaint state a facially meritorious claim, the Court typically orders an answer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If, however, the allegations are “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” the complaint will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A(b)(1). Because the screening function is not complete, it is premature to consider evidence or facts outside of the Complaint. See Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994) (when determining whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, review is generally limited to “the allegations within the four corners of the complaint.”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Time Line Evidence [ECF 6] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may renew his request to submit evidence if the case survives screening and/or supplement his factual allegations by requesting leave to file an amended complaint. SO ORDERED. wth raf tAgAA THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT UNITED STAZES MAGISTRATE JUDGE