Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/9/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
CATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv01773 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT
(Document 15-1)

16
17

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action

20
21
22

on October 25, 2011.
On January 18, 2013, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an
amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the First Amendment

23

retaliation claim.
24
25
26
27
28

On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. He attached a Motion
for Reconsideration to the back of the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration
of the Court’s January 18, 2013, screening order. However, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
sets forth the claims at issue in the Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore, because the Court
1

1

will screen the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is

2

unnecessary.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
6

May 9, 2013

/s/ Dennis

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

7

3b142a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

If relevant, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s arguments in the motion when screening the First Amended
Complaint.
2