King v. Price

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/23/2024 DENYING 33 Request for Clarification.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Kevin Lynell King,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-01998-KJM-KJN
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Jerome Price, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

In 2016, the Magistrate Judge dismissed plaintiff Kevin King’s complaint with leave to

18

amend under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff requested

19

and received extensions to his deadline to file an amended complaint, but he did not ultimately

20

amend his complaint, and the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing this action without

21

prejudice. See F&Rs, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff did not object, and this court adopted the Magistrate

22

Judge’s recommendation in 2017. See Order, ECF No. 31; Judgment, ECF No. 32. Meanwhile,

23

plaintiff’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s screening order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

24

See ECF Nos. 21, 22, 28, 29. Plaintiff now requests clarification why he is “required to pay a

25

filing fee for an appeal that [he] never officially filed.” ECF No. 33. This court cannot grant

26

relief related to plaintiff’s appeal, and contrary to his motion, the appeal was filed. See, e.g.,

27

Appeal Information, ECF No. 22-1.

28

The motion for clarification (ECF No. 33) is denied.
1

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 23, 2024.

3

2