Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 222

ORDER Directing Clerk to Terminate 219 Motion and Forward August 3 2016, Motion t the U.S. Court of Appeals signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/09/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOUIS BRANCH,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:08-cv-01655-SAB-PC
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
TERMINATE MOTION AND FORWARD
AUGUST 3, 2016, MOTION TO THE U.S.
COURT OF APPEALS

v.

14

D. UMPHENOUR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Louis Branch is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

19 document filed with the Court on August 3, 2016. (ECF No. 219.) The parties have consented
20 to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
21

On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his consent to magistrate judge

22 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 198.) On April 1, 2016, an order was entered, denying Plaintiff’s motion
23 to withdraw his consent and to vacate the assignment of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
24 636(c). (ECF No. 200.) On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
25 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order assigning this action to a magistrate judge.
26 (ECF No. 201.)

On May 5, 2016, an order was entered, denying Plaintiff’s motion for

27 reconsideration. (ECF No. 204.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of that order, and on July 20,
28 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of

1

1 appellate jurisdiction. (ECF No. 217.)
On August 3, 2016, the Clerk’s Office received for filing a document titled as a motion

2

3 for reconsideration. The document was entered on to the docket as a motion for reconsideration
4 of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent and to vacate the assignment of this
5 case to a magistrate judge. The document is captioned as a motion addressed to the U. S. Court
6 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff refers to himself as appellant, and argues that the
7 appellate court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s appeal, and requests relief from that court in the
8 form of a writ of mandamus. It appears that the document was intended to be filed in the U.S.
9 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and was entered on to the docket in this case in error.
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to terminate the motion for reconsideration filed on
August 3, 2016, as filed in error; and

12

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward the August 3, 2016, motion to the U.S.

13

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated:

August 9, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2