Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-38/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-00986-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE 

SECOND NOTICE OF APPEAL

(ECF NO. 163)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c).1 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants Martin, 

Northcutt, Caviness, Trujillo and Truitt. On March 26, 2015, an order was entered, granting in 

part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. (ECF 

No. 153.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, which was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals on September 8, 2015. (ECF No. 162.) The Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff’s request for 

voluntary dismissal. 

On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion in this Court requesting leave to file a 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on August 11, 2008 (ECF No. 4). Defendants 

consented on May 31, 2011 (ECF No. 97).

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 165 Filed 11/16/15 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

second appeal. In his motion, Plaintiff indicates that he filed the notice of voluntary dismissal 

because he was placed in administrative segregation (AdSeg) and did not have access to his 

property. Because he did not have access to his property, Plaintiff could not meet the filing 

deadline for his opening brief. Plaintiff was eventually cleared of charges and his property was 

returned to him. Plaintiff filed a request in the Ninth Circuit, seeking withdrawal of his notice of 

voluntary dismissal, and indicating that he would be able to file his opening brief on time. 

On November 13, 2015, an order was entered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

construing Plaintiff’s request to disregard his notice of voluntary dismissal as a motion to 

reinstate the appeal. So construed, the motion was denied. The court ordered that all other 

pending motions were denied as moot, and that the appeal remains closed, as plaintiff was 

appealing from a non-appealable order. Plaintiff’s November 2, 2015, motion requesting leave 

to file a second notice of appeal filed in this Court is therefore moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second 

notice of appeal is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 165 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2