Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chaderick A. Ingram v. City of Sacramento

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 11, 2012

CHADERICK A. INGRAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This action was removed to this court on April 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to this court by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).

On April 27, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed as duplicative of another action filed in this court, Ingram v. City of Sacramento, CIV S-12-0864 KJM GGH. The undersigned also vacated the scheduled status/scheduling conference and stayed the action pending the district judge's review of the findings and recommendations, which await final resolution by the district judge.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed motions to appoint him a guardian ad litem and counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14.) Given the court's conclusion that this action is duplicative of the previously-filed action, and that this action is currently stayed, these motions will be denied without prejudice. Nothing precludes plaintiff from filing these motions in the previously-filed action of Ingram v. City of Sacramento, CIV S-12-0864 KJM GGH. In the event that the district judge does not adopt the undersigned's findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed as duplicative, plaintiff will be allowed to re-file any motion(s) to appoint a guardian ad litem and/or counsel.

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to appoint a guardian ad litem (dkt. no. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (dkt. no. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the July 25, 2012 hearing on this motion is VACATED.

3. This action remains STAYED pending the district judge's review of the findings and recommendations issued on April 27, 2012.

20120611

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.