Harris v. Rios et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/19/2012 granting 67 Motion for clarification. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

CASE No. 1:09-cv-00781-AWI-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

13
v.

(ECF No. 67)

14
15

H.A. RIOS, et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
/
18
19

Plaintiff Donte Rolando Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se

20

in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

21

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). This matter proceeds on

22

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza,

23

and Valero for interfering with incoming mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the

24

First Amendment; against Defendant Cobb for interfering with outgoing mail in violation

25

of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment; and against Defendants Estrada, Cobb,

26

Valero, and Zaragoza for violating Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights

27

in connection with Plaintiff’s mail. Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

28

In lieu of an answer, on March 21, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to revoke
-1-

1

Plaintiff’s IFP status and dismiss the case (ECF No. 57) on grounds Plaintiff was a

2

“three strikes” litigant, i.e., one who had three or more prior actions dismissed as

3

frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

4

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Then, on May 3, 2012, Plaintiff effectively waived his IFP status by paying in full

5
6

the $350 filing fee. (Receipt No. CAE100018795.) Thus, on July 16, 2012, the

7

Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter issued findings and recommendations that

8

Defendant’s motion to revoke and dismiss (ECF No. 57) be denied as moot. (ECF No.

9

62.) On August 20, 2012, the District Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate

10

Judge’s said findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 64.)
Nevertheless, on August 20, 2012, the Court Clerk errantly entered judgment

11
12

upon the order adopting the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 65.) The Clerk

13

corrected the error on August 21, 2012, notifying the parties to disregard the

14

erroneously entered judgment. (ECF No. 66.)
On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of the Clerk’s

15
16

notice to disregard. (ECF No. 67.) That motion is now before the Court.

17

Plaintiff’s request for clarification is granted. The Court believes the history

18

recited above should suffice as the requested clarification. Further, the Plaintiff is

19

advised, the end result of all of the above is that, the filing fee having been paid, this

20

case is properly before the Court and will proceed as if the erroneous judgment had

21

never been entered.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:
ci4d6

September 19, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
-2-