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)

Download PDF
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?