(PC)Vera v. Warden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM VERA, aka Memo Vera, 1:22-cv-00893-DAD-BAK (SKO) (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S LETTER TO 11 v. THE COURT FILED AUGUST 8, 2022 12 WARDEN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff William Vera, also known as Memo Vera, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in 16 a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 19 California by filing correspondence with that Court on July 20, 2021. (Doc. 1.) On that same date, 20 the Court directed Plaintiff to “submit a completed complaint … on the proper form … within 28 21 DAYS….” (Doc. 3.) 22 On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8.) 23 On September 17, 2021, District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an Order Extending Time 24 to File Complaint, granting Plaintiff an extension to and including November 5, 2021, within 25 which to file “a complaint on the appropriate form.” (Doc. 11.) On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff 26 was granted a further extension of time to and including January 4, 2022. (Doc. 13.) 27 On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (Doc. 14.) On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff 28 filed a document titled “Supplemental Evidentiary Documentation in Support of Defendant S. 1 Villegas Claims.” (Doc. 15.) 2 On July 19, 2022, District Judge Chen issued an Order of Dismissal in Part and Transfer 3 in Part. (Doc. 19.) The Court dismissed the claims Plaintiff asserted against three correctional 4 officers employed at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) (id. at 3-4), and the claims against SVSP 5 interpreter Luna and SVSP social worker Leffler (id. at 4). All claims against SVSP defendants 6 were dismissed without leave to amend (id. at 5). The remaining claims concerning events 7 occurring at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) or the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at 8 Corcoran (SATF) were transferred to this Court because venue is proper in the Eastern District of 9 California. (Id. at 5.) 10 Following transfer of the action from the Northern District to the Eastern District of 11 California, on July 26, 2022, this Court issued its Order to Submit Application to Proceed In 12 Forma Pauperis or Pay Filing Fee Within 45 Days. (Doc. 24.) 13 On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed correspondence dated August 3, 2022, with this Court. 14 (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff states his legal name is “G. Memo Vera” and that the California Department 15 of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “records are wrong.” (Id.) Plaintiff acknowledges 16 receipt of “an In Forma Pauperis application,” but states “it shall be duly noted that one has been 17 filed with the Northern Dist Court” and asks whether an application is “still necessary.” (Id.) 18 Plaintiff asks the Court to “provide [him] with a copy of the Court Docket.” (Id.) 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 A. Plaintiff’s Name 21 Plaintiff advises his “legal name” is “G. Memo Vera” and that the CDCR “records are 22 wrong.” To the extent Plaintiff’s correspondence can be understood as a request to change the 23 caption of this action, his request is denied. 24 Plaintiff has provided this Court with no evidence his legal name is “G. Memo Vera.” 25 While a review of the docket when the action was pending before the Northern District and in this 26 District reveals that Plaintiff signs correspondence (see e.g., Doc. 1) and pleadings as “G. Memo 27 Vera” (see e.g., Doc. 8; Doc. 12; Doc. 14; Doc. 18), the documentation that Plaintiff appends as 28 exhibits to these various filings identify him as William Vera (see e.g., Doc. 1 at 6-8 [Letter to 1 “VERA, WILLIAM (K73387)” from the California Correctional Health Care Services dated 2 6/7/21]; Doc. 8 at 3-5 [inmate statement report for William Vera]; Doc. 14-2 at 2 [California 3 Correctional Health Care Services form for “VERA, WILLIAM” dated 2/26/21], 11 [same, dated 4 9/7/21], 17-20 [same, dated 9/17/21], 26 [“ADA/Effective Communication Patient Summary” for 5 “VERA, WILLIAM” dated 4/5/21]). 6 The Court may take judicial notice of public information stored on the CDCR inmate 7 locator website. See In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may 8 take judicial notice of information on “publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable 9 dispute); Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 n.4 (C.D. 10 Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records). 11 A search conducted via CDCR’s inmate locator function using CDCR number K73387 12 reveals Plaintiff’s name as “VERA, WILLIAM.”1 www.inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov. The caption 13 presently identifies Plaintiff as “WILLIAM VERA also known as Memo Vera,” and will remain 14 as such. 15 B. IFP Application Status 16 Plaintiff advises this Court a previous IFP application had been submitted to the Northern 17 District. That application was filed nearly one year ago and was not ruled upon while the action 18 was pending in the Northern District. The information contained in the application is out of date; 19 for example, the Inmate State Report is dated July 12, 2021. 20 This Court will not consider whether IFP status is warranted based upon outdated 21 information. Plaintiff shall submit a current IFP application—as previously ordered to do on July 22 26, 2022. (See Doc. 24.) By no later than September 9, 2022,2 Plaintiff shall submit a completed 23 IFP application using the form provided to him with this Court’s July 26, 2022 Order. 24 C. Copy of Docket Request 25 Plaintiff has requested “a copy of the Court Docket.” Plaintiff is advised that, generally, 26 the Clerk’s Office will provide copies for Plaintiff at a cost of $0.50 per page. Under the 27 1 No inmate records were identified using the name “G. Memo Vera” or “Memo Vera.” 28 2 7/26/22 + 45 days = 9/9/22. 1 circumstances, the Court will make a one-time exception and will direct the Clerk’s Office to 2 provide a copy of docket sheet in this action to Plaintiff, at no charge. Plaintiff is advised that he 3 will need to pay for any further copies and that it is his responsibility to maintain copies of all 4 documents submitted to the Court for filing. 5 D. Miscellaneous Advisements 6 Plaintiff is advised this Court will not address letters or correspondence from Plaintiff in 7 the future. In the event Plaintiff is seeking an action on behalf of the Court, he shall follow the 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules concerning motions and/or 9 requests to the Court and their proper format. 10 Plaintiff is further advised that this Court will screen his complaint as required by 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As noted in the Relevant Background section, the Northern District did not 12 address or screen the claims asserted against the KVSP or SATF defendants in its Order of 13 Dismissal in Part and Transfer in Part. Those claims must therefore be assessed by this Court to 14 determine whether Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against any named KVSP or SATF 15 defendant. 16 This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. There are hundreds of pro se 17 prisoner complaints awaiting screening and delays are inevitable. Plaintiff’s complaint will be 18 screened in due course. 19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request to change his name in the caption of this action from “William 22 Vera” to “G. Memo Vera” is DENIED; 23 2. Plaintiff SHALL submit a completed IFP application, using the application form 24 previously provided, no later than September 9, 2022; and 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet in 2 this action as a one-time courtesy. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 10, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28