Raymond Montezello v. Pesce, et al.

E.D. California

Raymond Montezello v. Pesce, et al.

DecidedNovember 19, 2025

Docket2:21-cv-00906

StatusUnknown

This text of Raymond Montezello v. Pesce, et al. (Raymond Montezello v. Pesce, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raymond Montezello v. Pesce, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MONTEZELLO, No. 2:21-cv-00906-DJC-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PESCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is ready to proceed to trial. Plaintiff has filed a motion “to e-file a 19 shareholder’s derivative action.” ECF No. 71. Such an action is “an extraordinary process where 20 courts permit a shareholder to step into the corporation’s shoes and to seek in its right the 21 restitution he could not demand in his own.” Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 22 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff herein proceeds against three correctional 23 officers. From the motion, it appears that the “corporation” plaintiff seeks to represent is the 24 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. However, this entity is not a 25 corporation, but rather an agency of the state of California. Accordingly, plaintiff’s attempt to 26 add a shareholder’s derivative action to the current litigation is inapt and must be denied. 27 //// 28 //// 1 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's October 24, 2025 motion (ECF No. 71) be DENIED; and 3 2. Plaintiff's October 31, 2025 notice of shareholder’s derivative action (ECF No. 4 72) be STRICKEN from the docket. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 10 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 11 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 | Dated: November 19, 2025 _Slittidl Hema 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MONTEZELLO, No. 2:21-cv-00906-DJC-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PESCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is ready to proceed to trial. Plaintiff has filed a motion “to e-file a 19 shareholder’s derivative action.” ECF No. 71. Such an action is “an extraordinary process where 20 courts permit a shareholder to step into the corporation’s shoes and to seek in its right the 21 restitution he could not demand in his own.” Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 22 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff herein proceeds against three correctional 23 officers. From the motion, it appears that the “corporation” plaintiff seeks to represent is the 24 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. However, this entity is not a 25 corporation, but rather an agency of the state of California. Accordingly, plaintiff’s attempt to 26 add a shareholder’s derivative action to the current litigation is inapt and must be denied. 27 //// 28 //// 1 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's October 24, 2025 motion (ECF No. 71) be DENIED; and 3 2. Plaintiff's October 31, 2025 notice of shareholder’s derivative action (ECF No. 4 72) be STRICKEN from the docket. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 10 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 11 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 | Dated: November 19, 2025 _Slittidl Hema 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Raymond Montezello v. Pesce, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-montezello-v-pesce-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack