Valdez v Unknown

Filing 71

ORDER signed by District Judge David Alan Ezra on 2/5/2020 DENYING 70 Motion to Reopen Case and Motion to Appoint Counsel and ORDERING that Plaintiff be provided with a copy of this Court's order at his address of record so that Plaintiff is alerted to the status of his closed case. (Huang, H)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICARDO VALDEZ,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
§
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
§
WALKER, GUFFEE, and VORON, et §
al.,
§
§
Defendant
§

No. 2:08–CV–1978–DAE

ORDER DENYING MOTION
This case has been closed since May 10, 2012, when this Court
granted Defendants Walker, Guffee, and Voron’s (collectively, “Defendants”)
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 58.) Plaintiff Ricardo Valdez
(“Plaintiff”), a current inmate at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San
Diego, California, brought suit alleging that his requests for medical attention were
ignored for approximately one year when he was housed in an administrative
segregation unit at California State Prison in Sacramento. (Dkt. # 12.) Plaintiff
appealed this Court’s judgment (Dkt. # 59) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on October 9, 2012. (Dkt. # 62.) The Ninth Circuit denied his appeal for lack of
jurisdiction on November 8, 2012. (Dkt. # 66.)
On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case, to be
appointed counsel, and for summary docket print out. (Dkt. # 70.) With the help
1

of another inmate who can read and write in English, Plaintiff asserts that he is
unsure about the results of his case because he cannot read and the inmate who
used to help him with the case was transferred to another prison. (Id.) Plaintiff
asks to reopen the case, be appointed counsel, and to get a print-out of the
summary docket of his case. (Id.)
The Court cannot provide the relief requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff
applied to proceed in forma pauperis on November 12, 2008 (Dkt. # 6), which this
Court granted on January 8, 2009 (Dkt. # 10). The time to request to be appointed
counsel has long passed. Furthermore, the Court stands by its previous order
granting summary judgment for Defendants. (Dkt. # 58.)
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to
reopening the case and being appointed counsel. The Court, however, ORDERS
that Plaintiff be provided with a copy of this Court’s order at his address of record
so that Plaintiff is alerted to the status of his closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, February 5, 2020.

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

2