Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01279/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01279-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN

MANDEL and CORRECTIONAL

SGT JORDAN,

Defendants. ___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1279 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE NOTICE OF INTENT TO

PROSECUTE AND NOTICE OF

WHETHER HE SEEKS

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On April 1, 2004, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Captain Mandel

(“Mandel”) and Sergeant Jordan (“Jordan”). On February 14, 2006, the Court dismissed the

claims against Mandel without prejudice, based on lack of service, and denied Jordan’s

motion for summary judgment. Because plaintiff had not filed anything in the case after the

filing of the complaint two years earlier, the Court ordered plaintiff to notify the Court within

thirty days as to whether he intended to prosecute this matter. The Court cautioned plaintiff

that his failure to do so would “result in the dismissal of the above-titled action for failure to

prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 

On March 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “Proposed Order Granting

Plaintiff’s Request to Have the Unsigned Motion For Summary Judgment Stricken.” No

such request has been filed with the Court, however, and the only motion for summary

judgment filed in this case, the above-referenced motion filed on behalf of Jordan, is signed. 

A review of the text of plaintiff’s “Proposed Order” affords no assistance in clarifying the

Case 3:04-cv-01279-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

“request” referenced in the title; rather, plaintiff makes a number of unintelligible and

unexplained requests, including a request for summary judgment, “Judgment pursuant to

Rule 54(c),” and a “note of Issue.” Accordingly, no action can be taken on plaintiff’s March

20, 2006 filing. In that filing, however, plaintiff indicates he received the Court’s February

14, 2006 Order directing him to file a notice of intent to prosecute. Although plaintiff has

not filed such notice, his recent filing suggests that he may wish to continue with the case. 

Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted an additional 30 days in which to notify the Court of

his intent with respect to prosecuting this action. 

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than

thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed, a notice stating either that plaintiff does or

does not intend to prosecute this matter. Plaintiff is hereby advised that his failure to so

advise the Court that he intends to prosecute his claims in this matter will result in the

dismissal of the above-titled action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If plaintiff wishes to prosecute this matter, plaintiff is FURTHER ORDERED to file,

within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, a notice advising the Court as to whether

he wishes to have pro bono counsel appointed to represent him in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2006

_____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01279-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2