Moten v. Adams et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING In Part and GRANTING In Part Plaintiff's 60 Motion For Case Status Review and DENYING Plaintiff's 62 Motion For a Hearing on Endangerment of Life; the Clerk's Office is Ordered to Forward a Copy of the Docket Sheet to Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/26/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JESSE T. MOTEN,

10
11
12

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

1:07-cv-0924-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CASE
STATUS REVIEW
AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
HEARING ON ENDANGERMENT OF LIFE

v.
DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15

(ECF Nos. 60 and 62)
/

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Jesse T. Moten (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

On August 11, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for

22

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Order, ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff

23

filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 11, 2011. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 55.) On

24
May 18, 2011, the Court dismissed all of the claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended
25
26

Complaint except for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Gonzales.

27
-1-

1

(Order, ECF No. 59.) No parties have yet appeared.

2
3

Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s May 23, 2011 Motion for a Request for a Case
Status Review (ECF No. 60) and (2) Plaintiff’s June 10, 2011 Motion for a Hearing on

4
5
6

Endangerment of Life (ECF No. 62). Each motion will be addressed in turn below.
I.

MOTION FOR A REQUEST FOR A CASE STATUS REVIEW

7

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Request for a Case Status Review

8

and for a Copy of the Docket Sheet to be Forwarded to the Plaintiff (“Motion for Case

9

Status Review”). (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff appears to be asking for the Court to review his

10

Objections (ECF. Nos. 57 and 58) to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

11
12

Recommendations (ECF No. 56) that all of Plaintiff’s claims except for his excessive force

13

claim against Defendant Gonzales be dismissed with prejudice. On May 18, 2011, the

14

District Judge assigned to this matter adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

15

Recommendations, and this Order was served on Plaintiff by mail on the same day. (ECF

16

No. 59.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Case Status Review was filed on May 23, 2011, and since

17

it does not refer to the District Judge’s May 18, 2011 Order, it appears Plaintiff did not

18
19

receive that Order prior to filing his Motion for Case Status Review.

20

Accordingly, since Plaintiff appears to be asking for the Court to review his

21

Objections, which the Court has already done, the portion of his Motion for Case Status

22

Review simply asking for an update on his Objections is DENIED as moot.

23
24

The portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for Case Status Review asking the Court to forward
Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet of this matter is GRANTED, and the Clerk’s Office is

25
ordered to forward a copy of the docket sheet to Plaintiff.
26
27
-2-

1

II.

2
3

MOTION FOR A HEARING ON ENDANGERMENT OF LIFE
On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Hearing on Endangerment of Life.

(ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff appears to be appealing the assigned Magistrate Judge’s Findings

4
5

and Recommendations (ECF No. 56) which were adopted by the assigned District Judge

6

on May 18, 2011 (Order, ECF No. 59). Plaintiff relies on California state appellate cases,

7

and states that there was an abuse of discretion that must be corrected. This leads the

8

Court to believe that Plaintiff is attempting to file an appeal with the United States District

9

Court of the Eastern District of California. Judicial notice is taken that Plaintiff filed an

10

appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 13, 2011. (Notice, ECF No. 64.)

11
Accordingly, since Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing on Endangerment of Life appears

12
13

to be an appeal to the District Court of the decisions rendered by that Court, it seeks

14

appeal in the wrong forum and is DENIED.

15

III.

16

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:

17

1.

The portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Request for a Case Status Review and

18
19

for a Copy of the Docket Sheet (ECF No. 60) asking for a case status review is DENIED

20

as moot;

21

2.

The portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Request for a Case Status Review and

22

for a Copy of the Docket Sheet (ECF No. 60) asking for a copy of the docket sheet to be

23

forwarded to Plaintiff is GRANTED, and the Clerk’s Office is ordered to forward a copy of

24

///

25
26

///

27
-3-

1

the docket sheet to Plaintiff; and

2
3

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing on Endangerment of Life (ECF No. 62) is

DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

ci4d6

July 26, 2011

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-4-