Armstrong v. Garcia et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 04/06/10 ordering plaintiff's motion 90 is denied in its entirety. (Plummer, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. SILVEA GARCIA, et al., Defendants. / On March 22, 2010 plaintiff filed a motion in which he asks that the court make several orders. In particular, plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of the court's March 16th order denying his request for an order giving him a typewriter. Plaintiff has not presented any materially new information to support reconsideration. Plaintiff also appears to complain about incidents occurring in 2010, long after the complaint was filed; those incidents appear unrelated to the claims on which plaintiff is proceeding in this action. ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRADY K. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0039 FCD KJM P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1/arms0039.mot

There is not good cause to issue any of the orders requested. Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 90)is denied in its entirety. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he continues to file frivolous motions or make frivolous requests, he will be sanctioned, possibly with dismissal of this action. To the extent plaintiff seeks relief as to matters not directly at issue in this case, he should initiate other actions if there is a legal basis to do so. DATED: April 6, 2010.