Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06147/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06147-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINA ELYSE DUVALL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CCWF, CDC, Does 1-100,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:02-cv-6147 OWW SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action. On November 29, 2004,

Plaintiff filed her Fourth Amended Complaint (Document 30), and a

motion titled Motion for Speedy Removal (Document 31). The

Motion for Speedy Removal” was construed as a motion for

preliminary injunction for the grounds stated in the prior order

of this court adopting Findings and Recommendations denying

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed August 24,

2005. 

After de novo review of the case a prior order of February

3, 2005, was adopted following the Findings and Recommendations

of the Magistrate Judge on December 20, 2004. On February 25,

2005, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for

Case 1:02-cv-06147-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 10/21/05 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

Reinstatement Under Federal U.S.C.A. 183" (Document 34). This

request sought reconsideration of the District Court’s order on

the basis that the court had not received Plaintiff’s brief. 

Additional analysis of the background of the case is contained in

the August 24, 2005, seeking reconsideration of the motions filed

as Documents 33 and 34 was issued in this Court’s order denying

the motion for reconsideration filed August 24, 2005. On

September 26, 2005, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for relief

from judgment or order under Rule 60(b). She provides no new law

or facts to reconsider the prior decisions of the Court. 

Plaintiff has had four opportunities to amend her complaint. She

cites no justifying facts or new law which would justify

reconsideration. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed September 26,

2005, is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

duvall v. ccwf order

Case 1:02-cv-06147-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2