Herrera v. Statti

Filing 173

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/27/15 ordering plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 172 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 172 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERTO HERRERA,

12

No. 2:10-cv-1154 MCE DAD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

P. STATTI, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. On January 29,

18

2015, this court granted plaintiff’s motion to withdraw or amend his admissions pursuant to Rule

19

36(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered plaintiff to re-serve his responses to

20

defendant’s requests for admission within thirty days. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion seeking

21

a court order directing defense counsel to re-serve on plaintiff defendant Medina’s requests for

22

admission. On March 6, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a court order and directed

23

defense counsel to re-serve on plaintiff defendant Medina’s requests for admission. On March

24

12, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to comply with the court’s January 29,

25

2015 order. It appears that plaintiff did not have either a copy of the court’s March 6, 2015 order

26

or defendant Medina’s requests for admission at the time he filed this most recent request.

27

Accordingly, the court will deny his March 12, 2015motion for an extension of time without

28

prejudice.

In his motion, plaintiff also asks for reconsideration of the court’s determination that he

1
2

failed to exhaust his excessive use of force claim based on a “supporting document” not

3

previously considered. Plaintiff has not explained why he believes he is entitled to

4

reconsideration of this court’s ruling issued back on September 16, 2013, and has also not

5

attached any “supporting document” to his motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for

6

reconsideration will therefore be denied.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 172) is denied without prejudice;

9
10
11

and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 172) is denied.
Dated: March 27, 2015

12
13
14

DAD:9
herr1154.36d

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2