Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 356

Response to Plaintiff's 355 Application For Correction of Defendant List in Appellate Case 15-16368, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/23/2015. (Plaintiff's ex parte request to correct the appellate court's docket is DENIED.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

EUGENE E. FORTE,

9
10

Plaintiff
v.

11

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

12

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-0318
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF
DEFENDANT LIST IN APPELLATE
CASE 15-16368
Doc. # 355

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The court is receipt of an ex parte application for correction of the defendant list in the
above captioned case. The request arises from Plaintiff’s discovery that the list of defendants in
appellate case number 15-16368 in the docket report of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does
not reflect the names of defendants Morse, Turner, Padron, the Catholic Diocese of Fresno,
McGhee, McClatchy Newspapers, Los Banos Enterprise and Pride. These defendants were
dismissed by order of the court on January 11, 2012. Doc. # 96. Plaintiff also request the list of
defendants be corrected to include additional defendants listed in Plaintiff’s proposed second
amended complaint.
This is to inform Plaintiff that this court has forwarded all information concerning all of
the defendants, past or present, who have been named in any pleading filed by Plaintiff in this
court. Because Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint was lodged with the court but not
filed because leave to amend was denied, the names and contact information for the proposed
additional defendants was not and cannot be added to the court’s records. With regard to the
above-listed defendants who were originally named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint but

1

were subsequently dismissed, this court lacks jurisdiction to make any changes to the appellate

2

court’s docket information. However, this court’s supervising Docketing Clerk has contacted his

3

counterpart at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by email and has advised same of Plaintiff’s

4

concerns. Any further concerns Plaintiff may have with the docket of the appellate court will need

5

to be addressed to that court as this court lacks authority to make corrections or additions to the

6

appellate court’s docket. For this reason, Plaintiff’s ex parte request to correct the appellate

7

court’s docket is DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2