DuShane v. Sacramento County Main Jail et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/4/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 11/9/15 Request for Reconsideration 40 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JASEN LYNN DUSHANE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL,
et al.,
Defendants.

15

On October 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case denied Plaintiff’s motion

16
17

No. 2:15-cv-0136 TLN CKD P

for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that order.
Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no

18
19

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service

20

of the ruling on the parties.” Id. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), when a party is

21

required to act within a specified period after service of an order, three days are added to the time

22

in which the party must act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration was due on

23

October 25, 2015. Because that day fell on a Sunday, Plaintiff was permitted an extra day. Fed

24

R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff submitted his request for reconsideration to a prison official for

25

mailing on or after October 28, 2015.1 (ECF No. 40 at 3.) Therefore, the request for

26
27
28

1

The court generally considers a document submitted by a prisoner as filed the day the
document is given to a prison official for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270
(1988).
1

1
2

reconsideration is not timely.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s November 9, 2015, request for

3

reconsideration (ECF No. 40) is denied.

4

Dated: December 4, 2015

5
6
7

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2