Polk v. Pittman et al

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 29 Plaintiff's Objections Construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

SUSAN MAE POLK,

11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00728-AWI-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
CONSTRUED AS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

PITTMAN, et al.,

14

(ECF No. 29)
Defendants.
/

15
16

Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s first

18

amended complaint was dismissed, with leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days.

19

(ECF No. 22.) On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the order dismissing the complaint

20

and a motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 24, 25.) On April 25, 2012, an order issued

21

denying Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time as moot. (ECF No. 27.) On May 2, 2012, an

22

order issued denying Plaintiff’s objections construed as a motion for reconsideration and granting

23

Plaintiff thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) On May 9, 2012,

24

Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying Plaintiff’s extension of time. (ECF No. 29.)

25

In the order issued May 9, 2012, the Court addressed Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate

26

Judge’s order issued April 9, 2012. Since this Court granted Plaintiff thirty days in which to file her

27

amended complaint on May 2, 2012 and the court is now proceeding with the amended complaint

28

filed June 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the motion for an extension of time
1

1

shall be denied as moot.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated:
0m8i78

August 3, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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