Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00285/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00285-7/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00285 JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

(Doc. 29)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 30)

ORDER DENYING MOTION OF 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 31)

On December 3, 2012, the Court dismissed this case based upon Plaintiff’s failure to state 

a claim. (Doc. 27). This occurred only after Plaintiff’s four unsuccessful attempts to state facts to 

support a claim. (Docs. 1, 14, 19, 25). Now before the Court are motions filed by Plaintiff. 

(Docs. 29-31). 

In his first motion, Plaintiff seeks a stay of the action. (Doc. 29) As grounds for the stay, 

Plaintiff objections to the Court’s order dismissing the matter. In the second motion, Plaintiff 

seeks 30 days to file objections to the order dismissing the case. (Doc. 30) Construing these 

motions as a request to expand the appeal period, these motions are DENIED because there is no 

showing to justify such an action. 

In the final motion, the Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order dismissing the case. 

(Doc. 31) Despite the incredible difficulty of reviewing a single-spaced, all capitals, 12-page 

Case 1:10-cv-00285-JLT Document 32 Filed 12/21/12 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

27

28

2

motion, it appears that Plaintiff’s current complaint is that the Court has misunderstood Plaintiff’s 

claims and, even if it didn’t, that he should be given another opportunity to state a claim. Id. 

However, the Court has already instructed Plaintiff on what was necessary to state a claim and he 

failed to take this instruction to hear. Instead, he provided a Fourth Amended Complaint that was 

a rambling, stream-of-consciousness, ambiguous dissertation which failed to provide a plain and 

brief statement of the situation. Plaintiff cannot expect to plead his complaint so haphazardly—

despite instruction that this was insufficient—and then complain that the Court didn’t understand 

his allegations. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The motion for stay (Doc. 29) is DENIED;

2. The motion for an extension of time to file objections to the order dismissing the 

case is DENIED;

3. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED;

4. No further filings will be accepted in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:10-cv-00285-JLT Document 32 Filed 12/21/12 Page 2 of 2