Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02103-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 1

 Per the mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385

(1988); Koch v. Ricketts, 68 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 1995). The request is stamped by the Court

Clerk as filed on March 17, 2006.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN D. VOTH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2103 LKK GGH P

vs.

T. ALBRIGHT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s

January 6, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel. On March 13, 2006,1 plaintiff filed an

appeal to the district judge of the order, which the court construes as a request for reconsideration

of that order. Local Rule 72-303(b) states: “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . . from the date of

service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). Even with application of the

mailbox rule, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of February

15, 2006 is untimely.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 34 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 13, 2006 request

for reconsideration (file-stamped March 17, 2006) is denied.

DATED: March 29, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/voth2103.851

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 34 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2