Diaz v. Sherman et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 57 Motion for Contempt of Court and Monetary Sanctions and denying 58 Motion for Extension of Time to comply with Court Orders signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. STU SHERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:13-cv-01627-DAD-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MONETARY SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 57) 16 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 17 (Doc. No. 58) 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeded pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 On August 5, 2016, this court adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 22 recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 23 status be granted pursuant to the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and directed 24 plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within twenty-one days of the court’s order. (Doc. No. 46.) 25 On August 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order. (Doc. Nos. 47, 26 48.) On May 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal for failure 27 to prosecute. (Doc. No. 53.) On May 24, 2017, this court once again ordered plaintiff to pay the 28 required filing fee in full within twenty-one days of that order. (Doc. No. 54.) The twenty-one 1 1 day deadline passed and plaintiff had not paid the filing fee. Accordingly, on August 2, 2017, this 2 case was dismissed. (Doc. No. 55.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. No. 56.) 3 Over a month later, on September 5, 2017, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Contempt of Court 4 and Monetary Sanctions,” wherein he asks that monetary sanctions be imposed against defendants 5 and other CDCR staff for wrongfully placing plaintiff in disciplinary segregation and depriving 6 him of his legal property and typewriter. (Doc. No. 57.) On September 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a 7 motion seeking a thirty day extension of time to comply with the court’s “prior order,” stating he 8 only recently came back into possession of his typewriter. (Doc. No. 58.) In that motion plaintiff 9 does not state which order he seeks additional time to comply with. In any event, the only order 10 this court has directed to plaintiff in recent months was an order to pay the required filing fee in 11 order to proceed. (Doc. No. 54.) Plaintiff did not require access to a typewriter to comply with 12 that order. 13 This case was closed on August 2, 2017 and no motion for relief from the judgment has 14 been filed. Therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction over the claims plaintiff raises in what 15 he has styled as his “Motion for Contempt of Court.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 16 488, 492–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010); Zepeda v. 17 United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, both motions 18 (Doc. Nos. 57 and 58) are denied. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 16, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?