Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01162-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BANKS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MICHAEL J. YRACEBRUN, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1162 OWW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 17)

On September 27, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that this action on the grounds that the Complaint

fails to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, to

satisfy pleading requirements, to allege cognizable claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and appears intended to vex Defendant Michael

Yracebrun.

Plaintiff moved for a thirty day extension of time because

Plaintiff “had been working on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to exhaust issues at the State Supreme Court by next week on the

29 it will be completed.” (Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge th

Case 1:06-cv-01162-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

deemed this motion to be a request for an extension of time to

file objections to the recommendation and granted the motion,

giving Plaintiff until November 27, 2006 to file objections. 

(Doc. 12).

By Order filed on November 29, 2006, the recommendation was

adopted and the action dismissed. (Doc. 13) Judgment was entered

on November 29, 2006. 

On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff’s objections to the

recommendation were filed. The objections are dated November 28,

2006 as is the Proof of Service. (Doc. 15). 

On December 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension

of time, requesting an additional ten days “because the Law

Library was closed Friday 11-11-06, through 11-15-06, due to the

Librarian being unavailable” and asserting that the “Library is

closed on weekends and holidays.” (Doc. 16). The motion for

extension of time is dated November 20, 2006 as is the Proof of

Service.

Because Plaintiff’s objections were untimely filed, the

objections are not considered.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration raises grounds

already considered by the Magistrate Judge and the Court and does

not demonstrate that the rulings were clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01162-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01162-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 3