Hamilton v. Unknown
Filing
59
ORDER Denying Motion For Clarification (ECF No. 57 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/31/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEORGE HAMILTON,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER
DENYING
CLARIFICATION
MOTION
FOR
v.
(ECF No. 57)
UNKNOWN,
Defendant.
16
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the action was dismissed on April 4, 2014
20
because of Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 50.)
21
Plaintiff appealed the Court’s judgment of dismissal, but that appeal was similarly
22
dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 58.)
23
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Clarify Specific Issues with Respect to the
24
Court’s Docket.” (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff seeks information regarding docket entry # 18,
25
an internal Court notation that is omitted from Plaintiff’s docket sheet. He also asks why
26
some documents do not appear on the docket in chronological order.
27
28
1
1
2
3
This action has been closed and Plaintiff’s appeal has been dismissed. No relief is
available to Plaintiff in this action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 57) is HEREBY DENIED.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 31, 2014
/s/
7
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?