Fisher v. Director of OPS of CDCR

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING Motion to Reopen Case Due to Lateness of Mail as Moot 26 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/25/14: Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint will be screened in due course. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR OF OPS OF CDCR,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00901-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
DUE TO LATENESS OF MAIL AS MOOT (ECF
No. 26)

Plaintiff Gary Francis Fisher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on June

19

20, 2013, in the Northern District of California. On June 2, 2014, the Court reopened the action and

20

directed Plaintiff to file a complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 10,

21

2014. (ECF No. 18.) On the same date, the matter was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 19.)

22

On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Reopen Case due to Lateness

23

of mail; and judgment as a matter of law.” (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff’s moving papers are rambling,

24

disjointed and difficult to comprehend. To the best of the Court’s determination, it appears that

25

Plaintiff is requesting amendment of his complaint and the reopening of this case.

26
27

However, this matter was reopened on June 2, 2014, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint was
filed with the Court on June 20, 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, filed on July 18, 2014, is

28
1

1

HEREBY DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint will be screened in due

2

course.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 25, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2