Andreas v. Cate, et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 9/10/2009 ORDERING 20 Plaintiff's Motion to vacate is construed as a request for reconsideration; Pltf's request for reconsideration is DENIED. Pltf's amended complaint is due within 30 days of the date of this order. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
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 Pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed his motion on August 24, 2009, although it is file stamped August 31, 2009. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NICOLAS DAVID ANDREAS, Plaintiff, vs. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. / On August 24, 20091, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the magistrate judge's order filed July 30, 2009, granting plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. The court construes plaintiff's motion to vacate as a request for reconsideration. Local Rule 72-303(b), states "rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties." E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order of July 30, 2009, is therefore untimely. ///// ///// ORDER No. CIV S-09-1207 FCD GGH 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 order.2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to vacate (no. 17) is construed as a request for reconsideration; 2. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is denied; 3. Plaintiff's amended complaint is due within thirty days of the date of this DATED: September 10, 2009. _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Although plaintiff has filed an interlocutory appeal of the July 30, 2009, order, this appeal does not stay this action. See 28 U.S.C. 1292. 2 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?