Bigoski-Odom v. Solano County Justice Center et al

Filing 40

ORDER RE 37 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/30/15. The F&Rs are not adopted. The 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. This matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN BIGOSKI-ODOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:12-CV-0197-KJM-CMK-P

ORDER

JAMES FIRMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by

19

Eastern District of California local rules.

20

On March 3, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

22

within a specified time. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the findings and

23

recommendations.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

25

304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,

26

for the reasons set forth herein the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations.

27
28

This matter is before the court on defendants’ June 30, 2014 motion for summary
judgment, which the magistrate judge correctly finds has not been opposed by plaintiff. In her
1

1

objections, plaintiff states that she never received a copy of the motion for summary judgment

2

and that she would have opposed the motion had she received it. The proof of service appended

3

to defendants’ motion for summary judgment states that the motion was served on plaintiff on

4

June 30, 2014, at the following address:

5

Ryan Bigoski Odom
223972
Central California Women’s Facility (1508)
P.O. Box 1508
Chowchilla, CA 93610-1508

6
7
8

ECF No. 33-5.

9

A docket entry in this action on July 21, 2014 shows that a court order served on

10

plaintiff on June 18, 2014 at the identical address was returned as undeliverable as addressed

11

because the name and CDC number did not match. On July 22, 2014, the order was subsequently

12

reserved on plaintiff at the same address using the CDC number WE7977. The latter CDC

13

number is on the notice of change of address previously filed by plaintiff, on November 25, 2013,

14

ECF No. 29. These facts support plaintiff’s assertion that she did not receive defendants’

15

summary judgment motion. For that reason, the current motion will be denied without prejudice

16

to its renewal accompanied by proof that it has been properly served on plaintiff.

17

The magistrate judge correctly observes that defendant Dr. James Firman has not

18

yet been served with process and recommends dismissal of this defendant pursuant to Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. In the objections,

20

plaintiff presents an address for service on defendant Firman. Plaintiff also requests an

21

opportunity to obtain a statement from Dr. Margaret Vincent, a physician at Sutter Health who

22

treated plaintiff. The court will refer the matter back to the magistrate judge for such further

23

orders regarding service of process and scheduling in this matter as may be appropriate.

24
25

Finally, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of a prior order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel.1 She has concurrently filed a motion for appointment of counsel which

26
27
28

1

The magistrate judge denied a prior request for appointment of counsel by order filed May 23,
2013, ECF No. 21. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that order, the request is
untimely. See Local Rule 303(b).
2

1

is pending before the magistrate judge. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel by this

2

court will be denied without prejudice.

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2015, are not adopted;

5

2.

Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) is

6
7
8
9

denied without prejudice;
3.

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel by this court contained in his

objections, ECF No. 38, is denied without prejudice; and
4.

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings

10

consistent with this order.

11

DATED: March 30, 2015.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3