JAIMES v. HERRERA

Case No. 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB (PC).

JUAN JAIMES, Plaintiff, v. S. HERRERA, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Juan Jaimes, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

S Herrera, Defendant, represented by Sean W. Lodholz , Department of Justice.

M. Lozano, Defendant, represented by Sean W. Lodholz , Department of Justice.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S JULY 12, 2017 REQUEST (ECF No. 89)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2017, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff was ordered to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file objections and on June 1, 2017, District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neil adopted the findings and recommendations, Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed two untimely objections to the findings and recommendations. On June 14, 2017, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's objections. On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request and a notice of appeal. On this same date, Plaintiff's notice of appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit.

In the document filed on July 12, 2017, Plaintiff states that he has received Defendants' response to his objections to the findings and recommendations, but has not received a "final response" which the Court construes as a request for an order addressing his objections and Defendants' response. Plaintiff states that he wants to know if his case will be reinstated. At this time, no order has issued addressing Plaintiff's objections or Defendants' response. These documents shall be addressed in due time and at that time Plaintiff will be served with a copy of the order.

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time of 60 days to proceed with his motion for summary judgment. However, there are no due dates pending and Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is denied as moot.

Plaintiff seeks for the Court to provide transcripts for appeal and conformed copies for his records. The docket does not reflect any hearing was held in this matter. Plaintiff is notified that the appellate court has access to the court's file in this case, and will request any necessary documents that are in the record directly from this court.

Plaintiff seeks a conformed copy. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks copies of documents filed in this action, Plaintiff may request copies of court filings by sending a self-addressed, stamped envelope and letter setting forth the copy request, along with pre-payment of the required fee, to the Clerk of this Court. Copies of up to 20 pages will be made at a charge of $.50 per page.

Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff's request filed July 12, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases