Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Valdez v. Walker, 2:08-CV-1978-DAE. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200207a11 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION DAVID ALAN EZRA , Magistrate Judge . This case has been closed since May 10, 2012, when this Court granted Defendants Walker, Guffee, and Voron's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 58.) Plaintiff Ricardo Valdez ("Plaintiff"), a current inmate at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, brought suit alleging that his requests for medical attention were ignored for approximately one year when he was housed in an admin
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION

This case has been closed since May 10, 2012, when this Court granted Defendants Walker, Guffee, and Voron's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 58.) Plaintiff Ricardo Valdez ("Plaintiff"), a current inmate at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, brought suit alleging that his requests for medical attention were ignored for approximately one year when he was housed in an administrative segregation unit at California State Prison in Sacramento. (Dkt. # 12.) Plaintiff appealed this Court's judgment (Dkt. # 59) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 9, 2012. (Dkt. # 62.) The Ninth Circuit denied his appeal for lack of jurisdiction on November 8, 2012. (Dkt. # 66.)

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case, to be appointed counsel, and for summary docket print out. (Dkt. # 70.) With the help of another inmate who can read and write in English, Plaintiff asserts that he is unsure about the results of his case because he cannot read and the inmate who used to help him with the case was transferred to another prison. (Id.) Plaintiff asks to reopen the case, be appointed counsel, and to get a print-out of the summary docket of his case. (Id.)

The Court cannot provide the relief requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis on November 12, 2008 (Dkt. # 6), which this Court granted on January 8, 2009 (Dkt. # 10). The time to request to be appointed counsel has long passed. Furthermore, the Court stands by its previous order granting summary judgment for Defendants. (Dkt. # 58.)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion as to reopening the case and being appointed counsel. The Court, however, ORDERS that Plaintiff be provided with a copy of this Court's order at his address of record so that Plaintiff is alerted to the status of his closed case.

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