Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499-5/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 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), for pro se prisoner litigants

seeking reconsideration, the court has calculated the 10-day period from the date the motion was

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s October 26, 2005, order.

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303(b), “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.” Here, the motion for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order was filed on November 19, 2005, which is more

than 10 days from the date of service of the magistrate judge’s order.1 The motion is, therefore,

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 01/12/06 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

delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. Otherwise, the 10-day period has been

calculated based on the date the motion for reconsideration was actually filed. 

2

untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is

denied as untimely.

DATED: January 12, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2