Canada v. Medical Health Housing
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/19/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
In re RONALD LEE CANADA,
No. C 11-05565 SBA (PR)
7
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
8
9
/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
On November 17, 2011, this action was opened when the Court received from Plaintiff a
12
letter to Senior District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the United States District Court for the
13
Eastern District of California expressing displeasure with the mental health care in the prison at
14
which he is currently housed, California State Prison-Sacramento. The Clerk of the Court opened a
15
case file, and sent out a notice that Plaintiff had not filed a complaint, and cautioned that the action
16
would be dismissed if he did not submit a complaint within thirty days. The Clerk also sent out a
17
notice that this action was deficient due to the failure to pay the filing fee or furnish a completed and
18
signed Court-approved in forma pauperis application, and cautioned that the action would be
19
dismissed if he did not pay the fee or file the application materials within thirty days. To date,
20
Plaintiff has not responded to the Clerk's notices.
21
The Court notes that several similar actions involving Plaintiff have been filed in the past. In
22
Case Nos. C 11-4888 SBA (PR) and C 11-4999 SBA (PR), Plaintiff filed letters stating that he did
23
not intend to commence a new action but only to inform Judge Karlton and/or the "Coleman1 Special
24
Master's Team" of his mental health care concerns. (Docket no. 4 in Case No. C 11-4888 SBA (PR);
25
Docket no. 5 in Case No. C 11-4999 SBA (PR).) The letters appear to apply to all past and future
26
actions stemming from Plaintiff's letters to Judge Karlton and/or the "Coleman Special Master's
27
Team," as Plaintiff filed nothing further in the instant action.
28
1
Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995), which involved a class of
prisoner-plaintiffs with serious mental disorders, has been consolidated with another federal class action,
Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 01-01351 TEH (N.D. Cal. filed 2001).
1
In light of Plaintiff's explanation that the letters he sent to Judge Karlton and/or the
2
"Coleman Special Master's Team" in his previous actions were not intended to commence a new
3
action, the instant action is DISMISSED because it was opened in error. No filing fee is due. The
4
Clerk shall close the file.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/19/12
SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Canada5565.dismiss(error).wpd
2
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
RONALD LEE CANADA,
Case Number: CV11-05565 SBA
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
JUDGE LAWRENCE K KARLTON et al,
Defendant.
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 23, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
15
16
17
19
Ronald Lee Canada C-65757
California State Prison - Sacramento
New Folsom State Prison
P.O. Box 29-0066
Represa, CA 95671-0066
20
Dated: January 23, 2012
18
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Canada5565.dismiss(error).wpd
3
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?