Gilbert Osuna v. E. Manzanalez et al

Filing 26

ORDER Regarding Motion for Clarification 25 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/8/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
GILBERT OSUNA,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
E. MANZANALEZ, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00719-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION
(ECF No. 25)

Plaintiff Gilbert Osuna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Gilbert’ Osuna’s motion for clarification, filed on

21

August 6, 2018. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff attaches an order he received from the United States District

22

Court for the Central District of California, stating that his filing would not be filed and was instead

23

rejected and ordered “returned to counsel.” The reason given is that his case was closed and

24

transferred. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks clarification, stating that he does not understand the reference to

25

counsel.

26

As Plaintiff was informed by court order dated May 22, 2018 from the United States District

27

Court for the Central District of California, his case no. CV 17-6283 PA (MRW) was transferred to

28

this Court. His prior matter was closed, and all filings should be submitted to this Court with the
1

1

caption and case number reflected above. Although the form used by the Central District states that

2

Plaintiff’s documents that they received on June 7, 2018 were not filed and returned to “counsel,” the

3

documents should have in fact been returned to Plaintiff as unfiled.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is HEREBY GRANTED, as explained above.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:

8

August 8, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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