(PC) Gonzalez v. Solo

Opinion

ALEJANDRO JAVIER GONZALEZ, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00009-JLT-CDB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENTS LODGED BY PLAINTIFF WITH THE COURT v. Clerk of the Court to Return Lodged Documents S. SOLO, et al., to Plaintiff Defendants.

Background Plaintiff Alejandro Javier Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 12, 2025, the Court issued its first screening order, finding Plaintiff failed to allege any cognizable claims in his complaint and granting leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 20). After an extension of time (Doc. 22), Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on July 15, 2025. (Doc. 23). In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff states that “medical records are on the process [sic] of being sent out …” Id. at 8. On August 12, 2025, the Clerk of the Court received from Plaintiff documents totaling 273 pages, appearing to consist substantially, if not entirely, of Plaintiff’s medical records. Discussion Plaintiff provides no cover page nor any accompanying document explaining the purpose for his transmittal of the documents, aside from the brief indication at the end of his first amended complaint. (Doc. 23 at 8). Thus, the Court will presume that Plaintiff intends said documents to be accepted as exhibits to his complaint. Plaintiff is permitted to attach exhibits to his complaint but they are not necessary pursuant 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)). Here, as in Ruiz, the Court “strongly suggests to Plaintiff 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.” Id. 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. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff is admonished that it is not the duty of the Court to examine his exhibits to determine whether or not he presents cognizable claims. The Court, instead, will analyze the factual allegations pled in Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether or not he has stated any cognizable claim for relief. See id. Further, the voluminous documents Plaintiff purports to lodge with the Court appear to consist substantially, if not entirely, of medical records containing significant amounts of sensitive and personal identifying information. Plaintiff is warned that, if he chooses to file such evidence on the docket in the future without first requesting the Court to seal said documents, he may waive any applicable confidentiality thereto, regardless of the relevance of said documents to this action. See Thomas v. Carrasco, No. 1:04-CV-05793-MJS PC, 2010 WL 4024930, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2010), aff’d, 474 F. App’x 692 (9th Cir. 2012) (collecting cases and explaining that privacy rights can be waived). As the documents Plaintiff seeks to lodge with the Court consist of voluminous medical records, which may serve to confuse the record and burden the Court and are not required for the Court to screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the Court will return Plaintiff’s documents. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to resubmit any such documents if submission becomes appropriate in the future. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was received by the Court and will Conclusion and Order Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The documents lodged by Plaintiff with the Court on August 12, 2025, SHALL be returned to Plaintiff. 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return said documents to Plaintiff. ITIS SOORDERED. 7] Dated: _ August 15, 2025 | hwrnrD Pr g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE