Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00172-13/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

RONALD VICTOR SEVILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARREL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00172-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

(Doc. 57, 58, 59)

Plaintiff Ronald Victor Sevilla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are three motions

filed by Plaintiff. On May 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion “fore leave to file an amended access

to the court jury trial demanded.” (Doc. #57.) On June 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for

“consideration.” (Doc. #58.) On June 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed anothermotion for “consideration” that

appears to raise the same issues as the June 1 motion. (Doc. #59.) 1

Plaintiff’s May 18, 2009 motion requests “leave to file an amended for jury trial demanded

and access to the court.” (Mot. for Leave to File an Amended Access to the Court Jury Trial

Demanded 1:16-18.) It is unclear what this means. Plaintiff claims that he has cognizable claims

and closes his motion with the assertion that “[t]his court should grant leave freely to amend a

complaint.” (Mot. for Leave to File an Amended 2:9-10.) Plaintiff filed his motion concurrently

The only difference between the June 2 motion and the June 1 motion is that the June 2 motion is

1

addressed to “the honorable Lawrence K. Karlton chief judge” while the June 1 motion is addressed to “the

honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, district judge.” It is unclear why Plaintiff addressed a motion to Judge Karlton, who

is not assigned to this case.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00172-LJO -SKO Document 64 Filed 02/04/10 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

with his fifth amended complaint. It is unnecessary for Plaintiff to seek leave to file an amended

complaint because Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint in the Court’s May 1, 2009

screening order. (Doc. #55.) This action will proceed on Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint. Other

than requesting leave to file an amended complaint, the Court is unable to meaningfully interpret

Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. If

Plaintiff wishes to re-file his motion, Plaintiff must clearly articulate the relief that he seeks.

Plaintiff’s June 1, 2009 and June 2, 2009 motions appear to request the recusal of Magistrate

Judge William M. Wunderlich. Plaintiff complains that Judge Wunderlich is biased. Judge

Wunderlich has since retired and this action has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Sandra M.

Snyder. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal will be denied as moot.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion, filed on May 18, 2009, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for recusal, filed on June 1, 2009 and June 2, 2009 are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00172-LJO -SKO Document 64 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2