Kabede v. Pleasant Valley State Prison Warden, et al.
Filing
25
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Reverse Judgment, Re-Serve Court Order and Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/27/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
WONDIYRAD KABEDE,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
v.
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON
WARDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:15-cv-00635-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REVERSE JUDGMENT, RE-SERVE
COURT ORDER AND APPOINT COUNSEL
(ECF No. 24)
Plaintiff Wondiyrad Kabede (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
16
17
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff consented to the
18
jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 19.)
On October 16, 2015, upon Plaintiff’s motion, the Court vacated its order dismissing this
19
20
action, ordered re-service of its August 3, 2015 screening order, and denied his request for the
21
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 23.)
22
On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff re-filed a motion requesting the same relief that the Court
23
partially granted in its October 16, 2015 order. (ECF No. 24.) It appears the Court’s order and
24
Plaintiff’s motion crossed in the mail. To the extent that the relief Plaintiff is re-requesting was
25
already granted by the Court’s prior order, his motion is denied as moot. His request for the
26
appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice for the reasons explained in the October 21,
27
2015 order.
28
///
1
1
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reverse judgment, reserve court order, and to appoint counsel (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
October 27, 2015
6
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
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?