Polk v. Pittman et al

Filing 82

ORDER RE: Objections to Magistrate's 5-13-13 Order Denying as Moot Plaintiff's Request to File Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SUSAN MAE POLK,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PITTMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00728-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S
5-13-13 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 76)

17

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

18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 6, 2011. On October 22,

19

2012, the Court issued an order dismissing certain claims and defendants and granting Plaintiff thirty

20

days in which to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that she was willing to proceed

21

on the claims found to be cognizable in the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 47.)

22

On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

23

the Court’s October 22, 2012 order. (ECF No. 53.) On May 14, 2013, the Court denied the motion as

24

moot because Plaintiff had submitted a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 72.)
Despite the Court’s ruling, on May 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the

25
26

October 22, 2012 order. (ECF No. 75.) A few days later, on May 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections

27

to the May 14, 2013 order denying her request to file a motion for reconsideration as moot. (ECF No.

28

76.)
1

1

Plaintiff’s objections to the order denying her request to file a motion for reconsideration are

2

moot. First, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration despite the Court’s express denial of her

3

request. (ECF No. 75.) Second, and more importantly, the District Court considered and ruled on

4

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the October 22, 2012 order. (ECF No. 80.) Accordingly,

5

Plaintiff’s objections to the order denying her request for reconsideration as moot are DENIED with

6

prejudice.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 19, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2