Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gonzalez v. Scharffenberg, 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181002f30 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING CSP SACRAMENTO TO GIVE PLAINTIFF HIS PROPERTY (ECF NO. 141) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT CSP SACRAMENT ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Mario Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing California Sta
More

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING CSP SACRAMENTO TO GIVE PLAINTIFF HIS PROPERTY

(ECF NO. 141)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT CSP SACRAMENT

Mario Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing California State Prison, Sacramento ("CSP Sacramento") to give him his property. (ECF No. 141). According to Plaintiff, he was transferred to CSP Sacramento on September 1, 2018. On September 6, 2018, he asked C.O. Rutledge if he could speak with a sergeant so that he could get his legal property. C.O. Rutledge responded "you got nothing coming you fat fag[.] You got a lawsuit against us." He also called Plaintiff a "piece of shit" and denied Plaintiff an opportunity to speak with a sergeant.

Given that Plaintiff alleged he was being denied access to his legal property, and that he has an upcoming deadline to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 140), the Court required the Warden of CSP Sacramento to file a response.

On September 26, 2018, the Warden, through T. Kraemer (the litigation coordinator at CSP-Sacramento), filed his response. According to T. Kraemer, a property officer has met with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff confirmed that he now has possession of all his legal material for this case.

In light of the Warden's response, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion as moot. If this issue arises again (or if Plaintiff was not given access to all his legal property related to this case), Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion with the Court.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an order directing CSP Sacramento to give him his property is DENIED as moot; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Litigation Coordinator at CSP Sacramento with a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer