Valdez v Unknown

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge David Alan Ezra on 4/2/2020 DENYING Plaintiff's 72 second Motion to Reopen the Case. (cc: P. Springs, CRD) (York, M)

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
Before the Court is a second Motion to Reopen the Case filed by
Plaintiff Ricardo Valdez (“Plaintiff”), a current inmate at the R.J. Donovan
Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, on March 30, 2020, with the help of
another inmate who can read and write in English. (Dkt. # 72.) Plaintiff
previously filed a very similar motion on February 3, 2020 (Dkt. # 70), which this
Court denied on February 6, 2020 (Dkt. # 71).
The facts underlying this case remain the same. 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 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
1

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.)
In this current motion, Plaintiff asserts that (1) the Court should
reopen the case due to “extraordinary circumstances” as Plaintiff was not told that
he was in the summary judgment stage and (2) Plaintiff should have been
appointed an attorney. (Dkt. # 72.) As noted in its previous order, 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.)
Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS that
Plaintiff be sent a copy of this Court’s order at his address of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, April 2, 2020.

______________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States District Judge

2