Evans v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/3/2019 DENYING plaintiff's 44 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RICHARD ANTHONY EVANS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1888 AC P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

17
18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On May 9, 2019, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for federal

21

protection, a request for records, and a motion to obtain a personal laptop containing evidence.

22

ECF No. 39. On May 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. ECF

23

No. 28. In support of the motion, plaintiff contends that he fears that he will be the victim of

24

“retaliation” and “foul play” while going through settlement proceedings. See ECF No. 44. He

25

also asserts his belief that the Office of the Attorney General “has no [intention] of “disclosing . .

26

substantial amounts of evidence in [its] possession.” See id. He believes that the Office of the

27

Attorney General will take advantage of him. See id.

28

////
1

1

Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no

2

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

3

of the ruling on the parties.” Id. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

4

order dated May 9, 2019 (ECF No. 44) is therefore untimely.

5

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

6

No. 44) is DENIED.

7

DATED: June 3, 2019

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