Polk v. Godina et al

Filing 31

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 30 Request for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/19/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT

6

EASTERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

SUSAN MAE POLK,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
GODINA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-01094-LJO- BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 30)

15
Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

16
17

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge

18

screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined that

19

it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18 and failed to state a

20

cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted under section 1983. The Magistrate Judge

21

dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No.

22

25.)

23

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to April 20, 2015, to file

24

her amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s request on

25

January 28, 2015. (ECF No. 27.)

26

On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections to the

27

Magistrate Judge’s screening order dismissing the first amended complaint with leave to amend.

28

(ECF No. 28.) On February 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request, noting that
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion was untimely and objections should have been filed on or before January 26,

2

2015. (ECF No. 29.)

3
4
5

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s screening
order. The objections are dated February 4, 2015. (ECF No. 30.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 303(b), a ruling by a Magistrate Judge is final if no

6

reconsideration is sought within 14 days of service of the order. Local Rule 303; Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

72. Here, Plaintiff filed the instant objections, which are construed as a request for

8

reconsideration, more than twenty-five days after service of the Magistrate Judge’s screening

9

order. Plaintiff’s request is untimely, and is HEREBY DENIED.

10
11
12
13

SO ORDERED
Dated: February 19, 2015
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

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