Ingram v. City of Sacramento, et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/11/2012 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 11 motion to appoint a guardian ad litem is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's 14 motion to appoint counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the 7/25/2012 hearing on this motion is VACATED. This action remains STAYED pending the district judge's review of the findings and recommendations issued on 4/27/2012. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHADERICK A. INGRAM,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-1089 JAM CKD PS

vs.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.
/
This action was removed to this court on April 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to this court by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).
On April 27, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations

19

recommending that this action be dismissed as duplicative of another action filed in this court,

20

Ingram v. City of Sacramento, CIV S-12-0864 KJM GGH. The undersigned also vacated the

21

scheduled status/scheduling conference and stayed the action pending the district judge’s review

22

of the findings and recommendations, which await final resolution by the district judge.

23

Subsequently, plaintiff filed motions to appoint him a guardian ad litem and

24

counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14.) Given the court’s conclusion that this action is duplicative of the

25

previously-filed action, and that this action is currently stayed, these motions will be denied

26

without prejudice. Nothing precludes plaintiff from filing these motions in the previously-filed
1

1

action of Ingram v. City of Sacramento, CIV S-12-0864 KJM GGH. In the event that the district

2

judge does not adopt the undersigned’s findings and recommendations that this action be

3

dismissed as duplicative, plaintiff will be allowed to re-file any motion(s) to appoint a guardian

4

ad litem and/or counsel.

5

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a guardian ad litem (dkt. no. 11) is DENIED

7

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

8
9

2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (dkt. no. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE and the July 25, 2012 hearing on this motion is VACATED.

10
11
12

3. This action remains STAYED pending the district judge’s review of the
findings and recommendations issued on April 27, 2012.
Dated: June 11, 2012

13

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
CKD/5

19

ingram.1089.vac.wpd

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2