Arceo v. DVI, et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/11/2014 ORDERING plaintiff, within 30 days, to provide the court with (a) plaintiff's current mailing address, (b) a statement whether plaintiff withdraws his motions for temporary restr aining order, OR an explanation how the matters raised in those motions are not now moot, (c) a statement whether plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action on the merits, and thus obtain the court's screening of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; failure to timely respond to this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; and Officials at the San Joaquin County Jail shall forward this order to plaintiff at his current address.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY ARCEO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-02396-KJN P

v.

ORDER

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and without counsel in this civil rights action filed

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s original complaint,1

19

plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and supplement (ECF Nos. 12, 13), together with two

20

identical motions for temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 13, 14).
When plaintiff commenced this action, he was incarcerated at the San Joaquin County

21
22

Jail. However, review of the “Who’s in Custody” website operated by the San Joaquin County

23

Sheriff’s Office indicates that plaintiff is no longer in custody at the San Joaquin County Jail. See

24
25
26
27
28

1

The court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint for several reasons, including because
plaintiff named defendants at three correctional facilities; conceded his failure to exhaust
administrative remedies; failed to state a claim for the deprivation of his personal property; failed
to alleged an actual injury in support of his First Amendment denial of access claim; and failed to
link specifically-identified defendants and challenged conduct in support of his First Amendment
retaliation claim. (See ECF No. 7.)
1

1

http://www.sjgov.org/sheriff/wic.htm.2 Moreover, review of the “Inmate Locator” website

2

operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicates that

3

plaintiff is not in the custody of CDCR. See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx. Rather,

4

review of the website operated by the California Courts indicates that plaintiff is now at Coalinga

5

State Hospital. See http://appellatecases,courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?.

6

However, plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with this court, as he is required to

7

under the Local Rules. See Local Rules 182(f); 183(b).
Before the court addresses the merits of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (which is 92

8
9

pages in length, including exhibits, and names 14 defendants plus two “Doe” defendants),

10

plaintiff will be required to file a notice of change of address and inform the court whether the

11

matters asserted in his motions for temporary restraining order are now moot. In his motions for

12

temporary restraining order, plaintiff alleges retaliatory actions by jail officials, including denying

13

plaintiff access to legal materials and other restrictions limiting plaintiff’s access to the courts

14

(e.g., limitations on typing, copying and mailing), failing to process plaintiff’s grievances,

15

inciting violence against plaintiff by other inmates, etc. Because it appears that plaintiff is no

16

longer housed at San Joaquin County Jail, these matters are now likely moot.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days after service of this order, provide the court with

19

the following:

20

a. Plaintiff’s current mailing address.

21

b. A statement whether plaintiff withdraws his motions for temporary restraining order,

22

OR an explanation how the matters raised in those motions are not now moot.

23

c. A statement whether plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action on the merits, and thus

24

obtain the court’s screening of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

25

2

26
27
28

See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (a court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate
determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). See City of
Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a
record of a state agency not subject to reasonable dispute.”); see also MGIC Indem. Co. v.
Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.
1980) (court may take judicial notice of court records).
2

1
2
3
4

2. Failure of plaintiff to timely respond to this order shall result in a recommendation that
this action be dismissed.
3. Officials at the San Joaquin County Jail shall forward this order to plaintiff at his
current address.

5

SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: March 11, 2014

7
8

/arceo2396.tro.osc

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3