Jackson v. Palombo et al

Filing 29

ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth 27 28 Motions for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/8/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD JACKSON,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE PALOMBO, et al,

11

Case No. 1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AND FIFTH
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF Nos. 27, 28)

Defendants.

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff Richard Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for reconsideration, filed on

16

December 7, 2017. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) As Plaintiff has been previously, and repeatedly,

17

informed, his claims in this action are barred by the favorable termination rule. Plaintiff was

18

further warned that the Court will not entertain additional motions to reconsider this judgment

19

based on the same arguments repeatedly presented to and rejected by the Court. (ECF No. 26, p.

20

4.) Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for reconsideration once again set forth no grounds

21

entitling him to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action.

22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for reconsideration, (ECF Nos. 27, 28),

23

are SUMMARILY DENIED. Should another such motion be sent for filing, it will be stricken

24

from the record and wholly ignored with no further notice to the Plaintiff. Enough resources have

25

been expended on motions that were ordered not to be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 8, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

28
1