McCain v. California Highway Patrol et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/18/11 ORDERING 30 31 Oppositions constitute applications for reconsideration of the court's ordered entered on 6/29/11 and 7/8/11, such applications are denied. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TERRYLYN MCCAIN,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:11-cv-01265 KJM KJN PS

v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

ORDER
/

16

The court is in receipt of two documents filed by plaintiff that arguably constitute

17

applications for reconsideration of two orders previously entered by the undersigned. Those

18

documents are entitled: (1) “Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #23” (Dkt. No. 30); and

19

(2) “Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #29” (Dkt. No. 31). To the extent that plaintiff

20

intended these documents to serve as applications for reconsideration by the undersigned of

21

orders entered on June 29, 2011, and July 8, 2011, respectively, such applications are summarily

22

denied.

23

In an order entered June 29, 2011, the undersigned denied two motions to strike

24

filed by plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which impermissibly sought

25

to strike a motion to dismiss filed in this action. (See Order, June 29, 2011, at 2-3, Dkt. No. 23.)

26

Similarly, in an order entered July 8, 2011, the undersigned denied four additional motions to
1

1

strike filed by plaintiff pursuant to Rule 12(f), which again impermissibly sought to strike

2

moving papers filed by defendants in this action. (See Order, July 8, 2011, Dkt. No. 29.)

3

Although plaintiff’s recently filed documents seeking “revocation” of these orders are difficult to

4

understand, the undersigned concludes that no new or different facts are claimed to exist that

5

would support withdrawing or otherwise altering the orders entered June 29, 2011, and July 8,

6

2011. See E. Dist. Local Rule 230(j).

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff’s

8

documents entitled “Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #23” (Dkt. No. 30) and “Notice to

9

Revoke Order Document No. #29” (Dkt. No. 31) constitute applications for reconsideration by

10

the undersigned of the court’s orders entered on June 29, 2011, and July 8, 2011, such

11

applications are denied.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 18, 2011

14
15
16

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2