Castillo-Ramirez v. County of Sonoma

Filing 77

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 75 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Stay. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010)

Download PDF
Castillo-Ramirez v. County of Sonoma Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, and DOES 1 to 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. ___________________________________/ NAOMI CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, No. C-09-5938 EMC ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF STAY (Docket No. 75) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Naomi Castillo-Ramirez, acting through her next friend or guardian ad litem Maricela Ramirez, has moved the Court to extend the stay in this case for an undefined period of time. For the reasons discussed below, the request for relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Previously, the Court issued an order staying the case until November 13, 2010, so that Plaintiff Naomi Castillo-Ramirez could find a lawyer to represent her and have that lawyer make an appearance in the case. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to have an attorney make an appearance could lead to dismissal. See Docket No. 73 (order). Plaintiff is now asking for an extension of the stay. There is no indication that Plaintiff is asking for an extension so that she will have additional time to find an attorney to represent her. Rather, Plaintiff's sole contention is that an extension of the stay should be granted because it would be unfair for the Court to dismiss her case. The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument. Regardless of the merits of Plaintiff's case, the bottom line is that "a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 retaining a lawyer." Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). If Plaintiff ultimately cannot find a lawyer, then her case must be dismissed. In the interest of justice, however, the Court shall give Plaintiff one final opportunity to find counsel to represent her. Plaintiff shall have until December 31, 2010, to retain counsel and to have that counsel make an appearance in this case. Plaintiff is forewarned that a failure to comply with this order shall result in a dismissal with prejudice. As a final point, the Court notes that -- although not entirely clear -- Plaintiff seems to be asking the Court to lift the stay in part. More specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to lift the stay in order to issue an order compelling (1) an independent investigation into the death of her father; (2) an amended autopsy report; and (3) an amended death investigation report. This request for relief is denied. This request is premature because Plaintiff has no attorney representing her and because the pleadings in this case have not yet been settled. See Docket No. 42 (Order at 2) (stating that "the request for relief [i.e., for a second autopsy and an independent investigation] is premature given that the pleadings have not yet been settled"). This order disposes of Docket No. 75. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, and DOES 1 to 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. ___________________________________/ NAOMI CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE No. C-09-5938 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk. Naomi Castillo-Ramirez 2113 W. Steele Lane Santa Rosa, CA 95403 707-568-0348 PRO SE Maricela Ramirez 2113 W. Steele Lane Santa Rosa, CA 95403 PRO SE Dated: October 25, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK By: /s/ Leni Doyle Leni Doyle Deputy Clerk

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?