Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al

Filing 144

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Order Directing CSP Sacramento to Give Plaintiff His Property; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Send a Copy of This Order to the Litigation Coordinator at CSP Sacramento, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/27/18. (This order served via email to Litigation Coordinator.)(Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

DR. SCHARFFENBERG and R.N. S.
SOTO,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Case No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING
CSP SACRAMENTO TO GIVE
PLAINTIFF HIS PROPERTY
(ECF NO. 141)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO
THE LITIGATION COORDINATOR
AT CSP SACRAMENTO

Mario Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing California State

20

Prison, Sacramento (“CSP Sacramento”) to give him his property. (ECF No. 141). According

21

to Plaintiff, he was transferred to CSP Sacramento on September 1, 2018. On September 6,

22

2018, he asked C.O. Rutledge if he could speak with a sergeant so that he could get his legal

23

property. C.O. Rutledge responded “you got nothing coming you fat fag[.] You got a lawsuit

24

against us.” He also called Plaintiff a “piece of shit” and denied Plaintiff an opportunity to

25

speak with a sergeant.

26

Given that Plaintiff alleged he was being denied access to his legal property, and that he

27

has an upcoming deadline to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

28

140), the Court required the Warden of CSP Sacramento to file a response.
1

1

On September 26, 2018, the Warden, through T. Kraemer (the litigation coordinator at

2

CSP-Sacramento), filed his response. According to T. Kraemer, a property officer has met with

3

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff confirmed that he now has possession of all his legal material for this

4

case.

5

In light of the Warden’s response, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot. If

6

this issue arises again (or if Plaintiff was not given access to all his legal property related to this

7

case), Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion with the Court.

8

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing CSP Sacramento to give him his

9
10

property is DENIED as moot; and

11

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Litigation Coordinator at CSP

12

Sacramento with a copy of this order.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 27, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2