Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The court is receipt of an ex parte application for correction of the defendant list in the 

above captioned case. The request arises from Plaintiff’s discovery that the list of defendants in 

appellate case number 15-16368 in the docket report of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does 

not reflect the names of defendants Morse, Turner, Padron, the Catholic Diocese of Fresno, 

McGhee, McClatchy Newspapers, Los Banos Enterprise and Pride. These defendants were 

dismissed by order of the court on January 11, 2012. Doc. # 96. Plaintiff also request the list of 

defendants be corrected to include additional defendants listed in Plaintiff’s proposed second 

amended complaint. 

This is to inform Plaintiff that this court has forwarded all information concerning all of 

the defendants, past or present, who have been named in any pleading filed by Plaintiff in this 

court. Because Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint was lodged with the court but not 

filed because leave to amend was denied, the names and contact information for the proposed 

additional defendants was not and cannot be added to the court’s records. With regard to the 

above-listed defendants who were originally named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint but 

EUGENE E. FORTE,

Plaintiff

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-0318

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF 

DEFENDANT LIST IN APPELLATE 

CASE 15-16368

Doc. # 355

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 356 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

were subsequently dismissed, this court lacks jurisdiction to make any changes to the appellate 

court’s docket information. However, this court’s supervising Docketing Clerk has contacted his 

counterpart at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by email and has advised same of Plaintiff’s 

concerns. Any further concerns Plaintiff may have with the docket of the appellate court will need 

to be addressed to that court as this court lacks authority to make corrections or additions to the 

appellate court’s docket. For this reason, Plaintiff’s ex parte request to correct the appellate 

court’s docket is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 356 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2