Early

(PC) Washington v. Early

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 20241:03-cv-05263California1,656 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RODERICK WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:03-cv-5263 JLT HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO REOPEN CASE

v. (Doc. 145) RICHARD EARLY, R. LAMANCO, and

PASTOR,

15 Defendants. 16 Roderick Washington requests this case be reopened “due to court failure to send legal [mail] and prison official interference with mail.” (Doc. 145 at 1.) Plaintiff contends he “was not made aware” of a court order and the “magistrate intentionally interfered with Plaintiff prosecuting his case.” (Id. at 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the arguments are unavailing, and the motion to reopen this case is DENIED. I. Background Roderick Washington initiated this action by filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) After the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found he stated certain cognizable claims, the Court directed Plaintiff to complete service upon the defendants. (Docs. 84, 87.) Plaintiff requested service be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.