Nia v. Adams
Filing
100
ORDER Denying 99 Motion for Enforcement of Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/09/2011. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
AASIM NIA,
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00520-LJO-DLB PC
10
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT (DOC. 99)
11
v.
12
DERRAL ADAMS,
13
Defendant.
14
/
15
16
Plaintiff Aasim Nia (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department
17
of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff was proceeding pro se in a civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was proceeding against Defendant Derral Adams for
19
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On February 23, 2011, a
20
jury verdict was entered in this action against Defendant Adams. Nominal damages were
21
awarded in the amount of $1.00, and judgment was entered accordingly. Pending before the
22
Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed June 29, 2011, seeking enforcement of the judgment.
23
Plaintiff contends that he has not received in his prison trust account the $1.00 that was
24
awarded. The Court does not generally issue orders enforcing judgments simply because a
25
verdict has been rendered. Plaintiff is required to use the procedures that are available for
26
enforcement of judgment. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 (describing seizure of property for
27
enforcement of judgment, under the law of the state where court is located); Fed. R. Civ. P. 69
28
(describing enforcement of money judgment by writ of execution, in accord with the procedure
1
1
of the state where court is located).
2
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
3
enforcement of judgment, filed June 29, 2011, is DENIED.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
b9ed48
August 9, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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?