Hubbard v. Seng, et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/29/16 ordering plaintiff is advised that any further documents filed after the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZANE HUBBARD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0025 MCE AC P v. ORDER MICHAEL J. SENG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 This civil rights action was closed on June 2, 2015. ECF Nos. 14, 15. On June 8, 2015, 17 18 the Clerk of the Court filed objections to the magistrate judge’s April 14, 2015 findings and 19 recommendations. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff had already filed two identical copies of the objections 20 prior to the entry of judgment. ECF Nos. 12, 13. The certificate of service in the most recently 21 filed copy of the objections is also identical to the two previously filed copies, and states that it 22 was mailed on April 21, 2015. ECF No. 16 at 17. The objections filed by the Clerk on June 8, 23 2015, will therefore be disregarded as duplicative of the objections plaintiff has already filed. 24 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. ECF 25 No. 17. The certificate of service indicates that the motion was mailed on June 15, 2015 (ECF 26 No. 17 at 22), after this action was closed and it will therefore be disregarded. Plaintiff is advised 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 that any further documents filed after the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue 2 in response to future filings. 3 IT IS SO ORDERD. 4 DATED: January 29, 2016 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?