Hicks v. Arya

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/27/19 DENYING 95 Motion for Reconsideration. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. HICKS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 16-cv-2465 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

AFSHIN ARYA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the

19

undersigned’s February 7, 2019 order granting plaintiff’s January 7, 2019 motion for copies. The

20

motion for reconsideration is addressed to the undersigned. For the reasons stated herein, the

21

motion for reconsideration is denied.

22

In the February 7, 2019 order, the undersigned stated that plaintiff alleged that on

23

December 24, 2018, his legal property was destroyed after prison officials shot water in his cell

24

with a fire hose. The undersigned directed the Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff a copy of his

25

proposed third amended complaint and a copy of the docket sheet in this action. The undersigned

26

directed plaintiff to mark any documents he believed he required to litigate this action on the

27

docket sheet and return the docket sheet to the court. The undersigned further observed that it did

28

not appear that plaintiff required access to many of the documents filed before the third amended
1

1
2

complaint to prosecute this action.
In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff alleges that the undersigned incorrectly

3

described the circumstances of the destruction of his property in the February 9, 2019 order.

4

Plaintiff alleges that at no time was water shot inside of his cell that resulted in the destruction of

5

his property. Plaintiff alleges that prison officials destroyed his property.

6

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff states that the undersigned correctly found that

7

many of the documents filed before the third amended complaint are not necessary for the

8

prosecution of this action. Plaintiff also states that he will be able to obtain many of the missing

9

documents through discovery. Plaintiff requests that the undersigned stay the order directing

10

plaintiff to submit the docket sheet identifying the missing documents until the completion of

11

discovery.

12

Staying the February 7, 2019 order directing plaintiff to submit the docket sheet

13

identifying the missing documents until the close of discovery is not practical. Accordingly, the

14

motion for reconsideration is denied.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

16

No. 95) is denied.

17

Dated: February 27, 2019

18
19
20
21
Hicks2465.rec
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2