Knapp v. Arlitz et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/19/2009 denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration of screening order and requiring compliance with screening order. (Amended Complaint due by 9/21/2009. (Lundstrom, T)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K'napp is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 28, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims. On August 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to have the screening order reconsidered by a United States District Judge, and a stay pending the district judge's order. Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 23, 2009, and this action is assigned to the undersigned pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff may not seek reconsideration of the Court's order by a district judge. Further, Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's order provides no basis for the withdrawal of his earlier consent. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). /// /// /// /// 1 v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., Defendants. / ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00412-GSA PC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HAVE A DISTRICT JUDGE RECONSIDER THE SCREENING ORDER, AND REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH SCREENING ORDER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 11)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Plaintiff's motion to have a district judge reconsider the Court's screening order is HEREBY DENIED. Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to comply with the order to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

August 19, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2