Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/15/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

16

C. McCABE, et al.,
17

Defendants.

18
19
20

1:13-cv-1779 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Document 19-1)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action.1 Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2013.

21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On October 29, 2014, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations that this action go forward on certain claims, and that the remaining claims

23

and Defendants be dismissed.
24
25
26
1

27
28

Pursuant to Court order dated June 9, 2010, Plaintiff was deemed to be a prisoner with three strikes or more and
therefore unable to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, on December 19, 2013, the Court
determined that Plaintiff met the imminent danger exception for purposes of 1915(g).
1

1

On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.2 The motion was

2

signed on October 29, 2014, prior to Plaintiff’s receipt of the order adopting the Findings and

3

Recommendations. It appears that Plaintiff is seeking to “reconsider” the Findings and

4

Recommendations, even though he filed objections on October 9, 2014.

5

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration because his mental illness and associated symptoms
6
7
8
9
10

caused him to overlook the “erroneous dismissal” of the due process and access to courts claim.
In support of his contention, Plaintiff makes the same arguments as he did in his objections. The
objections were considered and addressed by the Court in reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s
findings, and Plaintiff presents no new arguments and his motion is therefore DENIED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15

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

28

Plaintiff’s filing also included a request for the appointment of counsel and a medical expert. These requests will
be addressed by separate order.
2