Rosenbalm v. Foulk et al

Filing 46

ORDER (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2010)

Download PDF
Rosenbalm v. Foulk et al Doc. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VINCENT ROSENBALM, Petitioner, v. ED FOULK, CEO of Napa State Hospital, Respondent. / No. C 08-3436 SI (pr) ORDER This action was dismissed and judgment was entered on December 15, 2008. Nonetheless, petitioner has continued to file documents in this action, including statements about events in his state court criminal case and his conditions of confinement at the Napa State Hospital, as well as about disputes he has with the Ukiah police department and Mendocino County Sheriff's Department. The court already explained to petitioner that the claims were deficient for the reasons explained in the Order of Dismissal in this action, as well as in the Order of Dismissal in Rosenbalm v. Foulk, No. C 07-4197 SI. Petitioner also requested restitution and victim's services under 18 U.S.C. 3771, urging that what happened to him in his state court criminal case, in his dealings with police and sheriff's deputies, in his dispute with his landlord, and in his commitment to Napa State Hospital was downright criminal. The request is DENIED because he does not come within the scope of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining a "crime victim" for purposes of the statute as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 commission of a Federal offense"). (Docket #32, # 38, # 42.) Petitioner should not file any more documents in this long-closed action. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 13, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?