Quiroga v. Aguilara et al

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/30/2016. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for disposition of Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screening of Plaintiff's complaint. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

12
13

Plaintiff,

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN CASE

v.
(ECF No. 10)

14
AGUILARA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

CLERK TO REOPEN CASE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a County inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the action by filing his
complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. (ECF Nos. 1 and 2.)
On September 21, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to clarify his custodial status for the
purposes of in forma pauperis status, given that Plaintiff’s complaint listed a noncustodial address. (ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff did not immediately respond to the order and, on October 23, 2015, the
Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations to dismiss
the action for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 6.) The
undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations on November 10, 2015, noting

1

that Plaintiff filed no objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 7.) The

2

matter was closed.

3

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff’s objections were docketed. (ECF No. 9.) The

4

objections are dated October 27, 2015, and are stamped as having been received and

5

filed by the Court on October 30, 2015. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff timely objected to

6

the findings and recommendations but, for reasons unknown, his objections were not

7

docketed for more than two weeks. Moreover, the objections responded to the Court’s

8

request for clarification by stating that Plaintiff had been released from the Lerdo Pre-

9

Trial facility to the Lerdo Max-Med Facility on September 18, 2015. Plaintiff affirmed that

10

he is incarcerated and submitted a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis by

11

a prisoner.

12

In light of Plaintiff’s timely response, as set forth above, it appears that this action

13

was erroneously closed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen case (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED;

16

2. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action;

17

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for disposition of

18

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screening of Plaintiff’s

19

complaint.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 30, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2