Mabon Demetric James v. Proma
Filing
30
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. On May 31, 2016, petitioner filed another letter stating that he is unable to get proof of his condition from medical until after six month. (Letter at 1). He states that he is 75 years old, does not believe that he will live five more years due to his medical conditions, and seeks the Courts help in getting his freedom because he just want[s] to be free when [he] die[s]. (Letter at 2). Accordingly, no later than July 15, 2016, petitioner shall provide the Court either with medical records verifying that he has Alzheimers disease, or a declaration from an official in the medical department at his place of incarceration, sworn under penalty of perjury, with evidence of plaintiffs medical condition or showing the amount of time it will take to provide petitioner with medical records relating to his alleged Alzheimers disease. Additionally, petitioner shall provide evidence to the Court of all of the efforts he has made after May 23, 2016, to obtain his medical records. The stay of the filing deadline for petitioners Reply shall remain in effect and be lifted after petitioner submits the foregoing information, or after the time for doing so has expired, whichever comes first. *See Order.* (es)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Case No. ED CV 15-1956-SJO (PLA)
Title:
Date June 6, 2016
Mabon Demitric James v. Warden Proma
G U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE
PAUL L. ABRAMS
Christianna Howard
Deputy Clerk
: MAGISTRATE JUDGE
N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PETITIONER:
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR RESPONDENT:
NONE
PROCEEDINGS:
N/A
Tape No.
NONE
(IN CHAMBERS)
On May 12, 2016, the Court received a letter from petitioner in which he stated that he has Alzheimer’s disease
and is losing his memory, and needed help because he did not understand what is happening in his case. In order
to consider petitioner’s request for assistance, on May 23, 2016, the Court ordered petitioner to submit by June
14, 2016, any available medical records that verify his allegation that he has Alzheimer’s disease. The Court
also stayed the filing deadline of petitioner’s Reply to defendant’s Answer, noting that the Court shall lift the
stay after petitioner submits the medical records, or after the time for doing so has expired, whichever comes
first.
On May 31, 2016, petitioner filed another letter stating that he is unable to get proof of his condition “from
medical until after six month.” (Letter at 1). He states that he is 75 years old, does not believe that he will live
five more years due to his medical conditions, and seeks the Court’s help in getting his freedom because he “just
want[s] to be free when [he] die[s].” (Letter at 2).
Petitioner provides no evidence that his medical records will not be provided to him by the June 14, 2016,
deadline. However, in light of plaintiff’s allegations, the Court will extend plaintiff’s deadline to submit his
medical records or any other evidence of his condition. Accordingly, no later than July 15, 2016, petitioner
shall provide the Court either with medical records verifying that he has Alzheimer’s disease, or a declaration
from an official in the medical department at his place of incarceration, sworn under penalty of perjury, with
evidence of plaintiff’s medical condition or showing the amount of time it will take to provide petitioner with
medical records relating to his alleged Alzheimer’s disease. Additionally, petitioner shall provide evidence to
the Court of all of the efforts he has made after May 23, 2016, to obtain his medical records. The stay of the
filing deadline for petitioner’s Reply shall remain in effect and be lifted after petitioner submits the foregoing
information, or after the time for doing so has expired, whichever comes first.
cc:
Mabon Demitric James, pro se
Heather F. Crawford, CAAG
CV-90 (06/04)
Initials of Deputy Clerk
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
ch
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?