Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00271-0/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

 The court construes plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as including a request for

extension of time to file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, that request will be

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LISCHEFSKI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0271 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. SWEIGERT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 17, 2005, the magistrate judge issued an order that granting

plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, requiring prison officials to deduct

partial payments toward the filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), dismissing

plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel,

and denying a motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice to its renewal after the

submission of an adequate complaint. On April 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for

reconsideration of all aspects of that order except the dismissal of his complaint with leave to

amend.1 

Case 2:05-cv-00271-FCD-JFM Document 13 Filed 06/16/05 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

granted and plaintiff will be granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an

amended complaint. 

2

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). Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of March 17, 2005 is therefore untimely.

Moreover, review of the record shows that the orders by the magistrate judge

challenged herein were neither “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See E.D. Local Rule 72-

303(f). Accordingly, those orders will be affirmed. 

In accordance with, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 28, 2005 motion for reconsideration is granted;

2. On reconsideration, the magistrate judge’s March 17, 2005 order is affirmed;

and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

complaint. 

DATED:June 16, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/lisc0271.850

Case 2:05-cv-00271-FCD-JFM Document 13 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 2