Buesgens et al v. Hart et al

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS "RESPONSES," CONSTRUED AS MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 7, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's "Response to this Court's Order Document 69 Filed: 03/26/2009" and plaintiff's "Response to this Court's Order Document 71, Filed March 27, 2009," both filed April 1, 2009. Having read and considered the "responses," the Court rules as follows. In the first of the two above-referenced "responses," plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's March 26, 2009 order, by which order the Court denied plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the Court's order of March 13, 2009, for the reason that plaintiff's stated grounds for his appeal were frivolous. Plaintiff has failed to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration exists, and, in any event, has again failed to identify any non-frivolous ground on which he could base an appeal from the March 13, 2009 order. Accordingly, said "response," construed as a motion for reconsideration, is hereby DENIED. v. BEVERLY HART, et al., Defendants / MICHAEL L. BUESGENS, Plaintiff, No. C-08-5710 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "RESPONSES," CONSTRUED AS MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In the second of the two above-referenced "responses," plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's order of March 27, 2009, by which order the Court denied plaintiff's request that the Court take judicial notice of certain alleged "facts" pertaining to an action plaintiff instituted in the United States Merit System Protection Board ("MSPB"), for the reason that the Court lacks jurisdiction, in this closed case, to consider any controversy that might exist in an action pending before the MSPB. Plaintiff has failed to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration exists. Accordingly, said "response," construed as a motion for reconsideration, is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2