Monclova-Chavez v. McEachern et al
Filing
204
ORDER DENYING 203 Request for Assistance Regarding Writ of Execution signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/22/2019. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MAXIMILLIAN MONCLOVACHAVEZ,
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
ASSISTANCE REGARDING WRIT OF
EXECUTION
v.
14
15
Case No. 1:08-cv-00076-AWI-BAM (PC)
(ECF No. 203)
McEACHERN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Maximilian Monclova-Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner who proceeded
17
18
with counsel and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
19
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This action proceeded against
20
Defendants Miller, White, McEachern, and Tincher.
Ultimately, this action was closed after judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and
21
22
against Defendants White and Miller in the amount of $10,000.00, Defendant Tincher was
23
dismissed with prejudice, and default judgment was entered against Defendant McEachern in the
24
amount of $12,000.00. (ECF Nos. 168, 169, 171, 172, 187.)
Following entry of judgment, Plaintiff decided to proceed pro se and Plaintiff’s counsel
25
26
was permitted to withdraw. (ECF No. 196.) Plaintiff’s motion for writ of execution was granted,
27
and those writs were issued on September 6, 2018. (ECF Nos. 196, 200, 201.)
28
///
1
1
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for assistance regarding the writs of
2
execution, filed January 11, 2019. (ECF No. 23.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that he has not
3
received any settlement or judgment fees from Defendants McEachern, White, and Miller.
4
Plaintiff also states that he is unable to contact the defendants, as their personal information is
5
private and cannot be obtained through Freedom of Information requests. Plaintiff contends that
6
he needs help from the courts to pursue liens, freeze assets, and so forth, due to his indigency and
7
incarceration at a BOP facility. (Id.)
8
9
As explained in the Court’s May 7, 2018 order granting Plaintiff’s motion for writ of
execution, although Plaintiff was entitled to issuance of the writs of execution, it is Plaintiff’s
10
responsibility to serve the writs on Defendants and take any further actions necessary to collect on
11
the judgments. The appropriate writs of execution were issued on September 6, 2018, and this
12
closed case is not the appropriate avenue for the further relief Plaintiff seeks. Accordingly,
13
Plaintiff’s request for assistance, (ECF No. 203), is HEREBY DENIED.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
January 22, 2019
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?