Canada v. Hamkar

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/25/2017 ORDERING Defendant to notify the court, within 7 days, whether he has any objection to the dismissal of this action with prejudice. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD LEE CANADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-cv-2990 WBS KJN P

ORDER

HAMKAR,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

17
18

§ 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim alleging that while he was

19

housed at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sacramento) in 2014, Dr. Hamkar was

20

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, by, inter alia, denying plaintiff

21

effective medication for chronic pain despite his knowledge of the impairments that plaintiff

22

would suffer in the absence of the required medication. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) On July 13, 2017,

23

plaintiff filed a document styled, “Declaration in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

24

Judgment,” in which he made multiple requests, including a request to voluntarily dismiss this

25

action.

26

On July 17, 2017, the court acknowledged plaintiff’s allegations concerning death threats

27

he allegedly received while housed at Kern Valley State Prison, and provided information on how

28

he could proceed with such claims in the Fresno Division of this court. (ECF No. 58 at 2 n.1.) In
1

1

light of those allegations, it was unclear how plaintiff wished to proceed; thus, the court directed

2

plaintiff to file a clarification as to whether he wished to have the stay lifted, and to proceed on

3

the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or whether he wished to voluntarily dismiss the

4

action as he had requested. However, on July 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice that he was again

5

being transferred. On August 14, 2017, plaintiff confirmed that he was transferred to California

6

Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California. On August 23, 2017, plaintiff was granted an

7

extension of time in which to respond to the July 17, 2017 order. (ECF No. 61.)

8

Plaintiff has now filed his response. In addition to reciting the history of this action, he

9

reiterates the alleged death threats he received at Kern Valley State Prison, and confirmed that he

10

wishes to have the stay of this action lifted, and to voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice

11

due to the alleged death threats.1

12

In the instant action, plaintiff has been provided multiple opportunities to proceed, but it

13

appears that, despite his recent transfer away from Kern Valley State Prison, plaintiff wants to

14

voluntarily dismiss this action.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant notify this court, within seven

16

days, whether he has any objection to the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Should

17

defendant fail to respond, plaintiff’s request will be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

18

Dated: September 25, 2017

19
20
21
/cana2990.59a

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is pursuing a civil rights action against defendant Niebert, Correctional Sergeant, one
of the alleged perpetrators at Kern Valley State Prison. Canada v. Niebert, No. 2:17-cv- 0873
BAM (E.D. Cal, Fresno Div.), which remains pending. In another case before the undersigned,
plaintiff declares that the only case from “CSP-Sacramento” he is continuing is Canada v. Lewis,
No. 2:17-cv-0313 EFB, stating: “The other cases from CSP-Sacramento the court clerk can
dismiss, I am having problem staying focus[ed] and concentrating.” Canada v. Macomber, No.
2:17-cv-0070 KJN (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 27 at 3.) Plaintiff was given an additional thirty days to
file an amended complaint or otherwise file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Id. (ECF No. 28.)
2