Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01202/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01202-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGUILARA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REOPEN CASE

(ECF No. 10)

CLERK TO REOPEN CASE

Plaintiff is a County inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the action by filing his 

complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. (ECF Nos. 1 and 2.) 

On September 21, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to clarify his custodial status for the 

purposes of in forma pauperis status, given that Plaintiff’s complaint listed a noncustodial address. (ECF No. 5.) 

Plaintiff did not immediately respond to the order and, on October 23, 2015, the 

Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations to dismiss 

the action for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 6.) The 

undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations on November 10, 2015, noting 

Case 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 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

that Plaintiff filed no objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 7.) The 

matter was closed. 

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff’s objections were docketed. (ECF No. 9.) The 

objections are dated October 27, 2015, and are stamped as having been received and 

filed by the Court on October 30, 2015. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff timely objected to 

the findings and recommendations but, for reasons unknown, his objections were not 

docketed for more than two weeks. Moreover, the objections responded to the Court’s 

request for clarification by stating that Plaintiff had been released from the Lerdo PreTrial facility to the Lerdo Max-Med Facility on September 18, 2015. Plaintiff affirmed that 

he is incarcerated and submitted a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis by 

a prisoner.

In light of Plaintiff’s timely response, as set forth above, it appears that this action 

was erroneously closed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen case (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action;

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for disposition of 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screening of Plaintiff’s 

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2