Opinion
17-cv-02204-JCS
07-06-2021
HARVENIA BRYANT-JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY, Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING LETTER RE: DKT. NO. 17
JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge
In 2017, Defendant Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Auxiliary ("CCRMCA") removed this case from state court and moved to dismiss. Plaintiff Harvenia Bryant-Jackson, pro se, filed her consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) but neither responded to the motion to dismiss nor appeared at the June 30, 2017 hearing. On June 30, 2017, the Court dismissed the only federal claim in the case under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and, lacking subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims, remanded sua sponte for all further proceedings to occur in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, where Bryant-Jackson originally filed the case. See dkt. 12.
In a letter dated June 29, 2021 and filed July 2, 2021 (dkt. 17) Bryant-Jackson now seeks this Court's assistance in obtaining a monetary recovery and other relief from CCRMCA. The case has been closed in this Court for more than four years, and the time for whatever challenge Byrant-Jackson might have asserted to the Court's order dismissing her HIPAA claim and remanding her remaining claims to state court has long since expired. Moreover, the Court cannot provide legal advice to litigants. Any further letters in this closed case will not receive a response.
Bryant-Jackson may wish to consult with the Federal Pro Bono Project's Pro Se Help Desk for assistance. Lawyers at the Help Desk can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation. Although in-person appointments are not currently available due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Bryant-Jackson may contact the Help Desk at (415) 782-8982 or FedPro@sfbar.org to schedule a telephonic appointment.
The Clerk shall serve copies of this order on Bryant-Jackson by mail at both the Concord address appearing on the docket of this case and the Sacramento return address appearing on her recent letter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.