Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06359/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06359-4/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

TIMOTHY E. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TIMOTHY TURMEZEI, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6359 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT

[DOC 19] 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint on September 24, 2003. 

On November 6, 2003, the Court found that the complaint stated a claim against defendants

Turmezei and Trott for the use of excessive force but that the remainder of plaintiff’s allegations

failed to state a claim. The Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On

November 8, 2004, the Court found that the amended complaint stated a claim against defendants

Turmezei and Trott for the use of excessive force and violation of equal protection and a claim under

the ADA/RA. The Court found that the remaining allegations in the amended complaint failed to

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 09/06/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

state a claim. The Court granted plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to either file a second amended

complaint or notify the court that he wished to proceed on the excessive force, equal protection and

ADA/RA claims. On December 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order. 

On January 13, 2005, the Court issued a recommendation to the District Court recommending that

the case proceed as outlined in the November 8, 2004 Order. On February 2, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections to the recommendation. The District Court adopted the recommendation on July 14, 2005

and the case is proceeding accordingly.

In light of the District Court’s adoption of the January 13, 2005 recommendation, plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration of the November 8, 2004 is HEREBY DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06359-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 2