From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez v. Khale

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 19, 2021
1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG

11-19-2021

ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. KHALE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ANSWER

(ECF No. 18)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee who filed this civil rights action pro se on August 11, 2021. On November 18, 2021, the District Judge adopted this Court's September 28, 2021 findings and recommendations to dismiss this case as frivolous and directed the Clerk to close this case. (ECF Nos. 11, 16). The same day as the District Court issued this order, Plaintiff filed a “motion to answer.” (ECF No. 18). The motion is difficult to understand, but it appears to ask if the Clerk received Plaintiff's objections to the undersigned's findings and recommendations and seeks permission to file an answer.

To the extent that Plaintiff simply wants to know if his objections were received, the Court notes that they were filed on October 27, 2021, but the District Court ultimately overruled them in adopting this Court's findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 13, 16). To the extent that Plaintiff moves for permission to file an answer, such a filing is procedurally inappropriate because this case is now closed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to answer (ECF No. 18) is denied. Plaintiff is advised that judgment has been entered against him and this case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ramirez v. Khale

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 19, 2021
1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Ramirez v. Khale

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. KHALE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 19, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01213-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)