Wright v. Baires et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 17 Motion to Amend Under Rule 15 signed by District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 4/6/2009. (Figueroa, O)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 18, 2008, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While Plaintiff was initially granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), the court revoked Plaintiff's IFP status and informed Plaintiff that to proceed in this action he would have to pay the entire $350 civil filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). (Doc. No. 14 at 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate, which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration and subsequently denied on March 4, 2009. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff now asks the court for leave to amend his "motion to vacate" and cites to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. (Doc. No. 17.) Rule 15 applies to amendments of pleadings, not motions. Further, Plaintiff's request to amend his motion to vacate is moot because the court has already ruled on that motion. The court finds nothing in the materials Plaintiff seeks to add which would alter its prior conclusion. /// v. M. A. BAIRES, et al., Defendants. RAYMOND WRIGHT, CDCR #P-61138, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08 CV 1213 JTM (LSP) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15 Doc. No. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1-

0 8 cv 1 2 1 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend the prior motion to vacate as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 6, 2009 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

-2-

0 8 cv 1 2 1 3