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)

Download PDF
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?