Saenz v. Spearman, et al.
Filing
180
ORDER DISREGARDED AS MOOT 179 and 178 Motion for Ruling, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/22/2013. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT GONZALES SAENZ,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
D. REEVES,
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:09-cv-00557-BAM PC
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR RULING
AND NOTICE OF FILING DISCREPANCY
(ECF Nos. 178, 179)
17
Plaintiff Robert Gonzales Saenz (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma
18
pauperis civil rights action pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on March 26,
19
2009. (ECF No. 1.) The matter proceeded to a jury trial on June 18, 2013. The jury returned a special
20
verdict in favor of Defendant Reeves on June 20, 2013, and judgment for Defendant Reeves was
21
entered on June 26, 2013. (ECF Nos. 165, 169.) On July 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
22
(ECF Nos. 171.)
23
On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of filing discrepancy. Plaintiff claims that the Clerk
24
of the Court did not process both of the appeals that he filed in this action. It appears that Plaintiff
25
seeks to appeal two primary issues in this action: (1) the dismissal of certain claims at the screening
26
stage; and (2) perceived errors in the jury trial. In order to pursue these issues, Plaintiff filed two
27
separate notices of appeal. Plaintiff now asserts that the Clerk of the Court did not process one of
28
those appeals, namely his challenge to the dismissal of certain claims at the screening stage. (ECF No.
1
1
178.) On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a ruling on his notice of discrepancy.
2
(ECF No. 179.)
3
Plaintiff’s request for a ruling and correction of the purported discrepancy is unnecessary.
4
Plaintiff’s two purported notices of appeal were combined into a single docket entry and notice of
5
appeal, which was filed into this action on July 15, 2013. (ECF No. 171.) Plaintiff’s appeal has been
6
processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the entirety of his appeal notice is available for
7
review by the appellate court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s notice of filing discrepancy and motion for
8
ruling are disregarded as moot.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
August 22, 2013
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?