Elseth v. Speirs, et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/13/2009 DENYING 49 Motion to Amend the Judgment. (Matson, R)

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 27 28 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 78-230(h). 1
*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER ARDEN ELSETH, PATRICIA ANN ELSETH AND ALLEN ELSETH by his guardian ad litem ROGER ARDEN ELSETH AND PATRICIA ANN ELSETH,

) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) VERNON SPEIRS, Chief Probation ) Officer of the County of ) Sacramento; DAVID GORDON, ) Superintendent County Department ) of Education; Sheriff of the ) County of Sacramento, Deputy ) Sheriff Tam, Deputy Sheriff ) Allenguiry, Dr. Saxton, M.D., DOES ) J1 to J20 and Does E1 to E20, ) inclusive, and DOES M1 to M5, ) ) Defendants. ) )

2:08-cv-02890-GEB-KJM

ORDER*

On July 10, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from an exhaustion of administrative remedies ruling in an order filed July 1, 2009, premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. However,

since Rule 59 is not applicable to this order, this portion of

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 27 28

Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

Plaintiffs argue, alternatively, that

the challenged portion of the order should be found suitable for appeal under 28 U.S.C., § 1292(b), but Plaintiffs have not met the showing required under this statute. denied. Dated: August 13, 2009 Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion is

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2