Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05942/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05942-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. JUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5942-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC TO

AUGUST 19, 2005, VACATING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED ON

MARCH 18, 2005, AND DISREGARDING

ATTEMPT TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION

(Docs. 50 and 65)

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2005, the court issued a Findings and

Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action based on plaintiff’s failure to file a fourth

amended complaint in compliance with the court’s order of January 18, 2005. (Doc. 50.) On June

15, 2005, the court directed the Clerk’s Office to send plaintiff a courtesy copy of the Findings and

Recommendations and notified plaintiff that he had thirty days within which to file objections. (Doc.

62.) On July 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file objections. (Doc.

65.) On August 19, 2005, plaintiff filed objections and a fourth amended complaint. (Docs. 66, 67.)

The court shall grant plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time nunc pro tunc to August 19,

2005, the date plaintiff filed his objections. Further, the court shall vacate the Findings and

Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, filed on March 18, 2005. Plaintiff’s

fourth amended complaint has been filed in and shall be considered in due course.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05942-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 09/14/05 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

In his objections to the Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this

action, plaintiff also requests that Judge Wanger’s order of March 15, 2005, which adopted the

Findings and Recommendations filed on January 18, 2005 in full and denied plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunctive relief, be vacated. (Doc. 66, 3:24-25.) Plaintiff previously unsuccessfully

sought reconsideration of this order. (Docs. 59, 64.) To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to seek

reconsideration of Judge Wanger’s order a second time, plaintiff must do so in a separate motion

clearly identified as a second motion for reconsideration of Judge Wanger’s order of March 15, 2005.

Plaintiff’s apparent attempt to seek reconsideration of the order, set forth in objections, shall be

disregarded.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections and HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections, filed July 5, 2005, is

GRANTED nunc pro tunc to August 19, 2005;

2. The Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, filed

March 18, 2005, is VACATED; 

3. Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint shall be screened in due course; and

4. Plaintiff’s apparent attempt to seek reconsideration of Judge Wanger’s order of

March 15, 2005, is DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05942-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2