Jackson v. Palombo et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MIKE PALOMBO, et al,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00986-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AND FIFTH
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF Nos. 27, 28)
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
December 7, 2017. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) As Plaintiff has been previously, and repeatedly,
informed, his claims in this action are barred by the favorable termination rule. Plaintiff was
further warned that the Court will not entertain additional motions to reconsider this judgment
based on the same arguments repeatedly presented to and rejected by the Court. (ECF No. 26, p.
4.) Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for reconsideration once again set forth no grounds
entitling him to reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for reconsideration, (ECF Nos. 27, 28),
are SUMMARILY DENIED. Should another such motion be sent for filing, it will be stricken
from the record and wholly ignored with no further notice to the Plaintiff. Enough resources have
been expended on motions that were ordered not to be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
December 8, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?