Ontiveros v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
33
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/14/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Motion For Reinstatement 31 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HERMAN RENE ONTIVEROS,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:17-cv-01740-TLN-CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff dismissed this action pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the
19
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to that, on October 24, 2017, the Court directed the U.S.
20
Marshall to serve the Chief Medical Officer at California State Prison, Sacramento with process
21
with respect to a claim for injunctive relief regarding medical care. It is not clear whether service
22
occurred before dismissal and the Chief Medical Officer has not appeared in this action.
23
Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“CSP
24
LA”), now asks that this action be reinstated as he is not satisfied with the treatment he is
25
receiving there. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as the proper forum for any claim concerning
26
his medical care directed at officials at CSP LA would be the United States District Court for the
27
Central District of California. Furthermore, the Chief Medical Officer at California State Prison,
28
Sacramento would no longer be a proper Defendant. If Plaintiff wishes to challenge the medical
1
1
2
3
care he is receiving at CSP LA, he should initiate a new action in the Central District.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement (ECF
No. 31) is DENIED.
4
5
Dated: March 14, 2018
6
7
8
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?