Fulford v. Griffith et al

Filing 60

ORDER Reopening Case; Vacating Referral of Settlement to Judge Vadas; and Reinstate the Amended Summary Judgment Motion and Denying Request for Inmate Participation signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James denying #55 Motion for Participation of Inmate. (Attachments: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FRED FULFORD,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

DON M. GRIFFITH,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-00770-MEJ
ORDER REOPENING CASE;
VACATING REFERRAL TO JUDGE
VADAS; REINSTATING AMENDED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION;
DENYNG REQUEST FOR INMATE
PARTICIPATION
Dkt. No. 55

12
13

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at California Health Care Facility –

14
15

Stockton, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 29, 2017, the Court

16

referred this case to settlement proceedings before Judge Vadas, and stayed and administratively

17

closed the case pending the settlement proceedings. Dkt. No. 44. A settlement conference was

18

held on October 4, 2017, and the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Dkt. No. 58. The

19

parties reported that they are awaiting a ruling on the pending amended summary judgment

20

motion. Id. Accordingly, the Court will re-open this case. The settlement referral to Judge Vadas

21

is VACATED. Defendant's amended summary judgment motion is REINSTATED. The

22

amended summary judgment motion is fully briefed,1 and the Court will issue an order addressing

23

the motion in due course.
Plaintiff’s request for participation of inmate Alberto Villescas is DENIED. Dkt. No. 55.

24
25

Plaintiff states that he suffers from severe disabilities and limitations due to illnesses and requests

26
27
28

1

Defendant’s amended summary judgment motion is docketed at Docket No. 34; Plaintiff’s
opposition is docketed at Docket Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45; and Defendant’s reply is timely
docketed at Docket No. 59.

1

that inmate Alberto Villescas participate at “all functions.” Id. The Court construes this motion as

2

seeking “next friend” status for Mr. Villescas. The next-friend standing doctrine permits persons

3

unable to prosecute their own action to have third persons — “next friends” —stand in for them.

4

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990). In order to qualify for “next friend” status, Mr.

5

Villescas must establish that (1) he is “truly dedicated” to Plaintiff’s best interest; (2) that he has a

6

“significant relationship” with Plaintiff; and (3) that there is an adequate explanation—such as

7

inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why Plaintiff cannot appear on his own

8

behalf to prosecute the action. Id. at 163–64. Plaintiff has not satisfied any of these requirements

9

and he has ably prosecuted this action thus far. The Court DENIES the request for “next friend”
status for Mr. Villescas. However, this does not mean that Plaintiff cannot receive assistance from

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Mr. Villescas in prosecuting this action. This Court’s conclusion is simply that Mr. Villescas does

12

not qualify for next-friend standing, and therefore Mr. Villescas may not file pleadings or any

13

other documents in this case or make any appearances on Plaintiff’s behalf.

14
15

The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case, VACATE the settlement referral to Judge
Vadas, and REINSTATE the amended summary judgment motion (docketed at Docket No. 34).

16

This order terminates Dkt. No. 55.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: October 18, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2