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)

Download PDF
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?