Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01871/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01871-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KOUBONG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK 

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 16, 2024, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) Pursuant to the mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed objections to 

the magistrate judge’s July 16, 2024, order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel 

on August 11, 2024.1 (ECF No. 16 at 6.) This Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a request 

for reconsideration of the July 16, 2024 order.

///

1 Plaintiff’s objections do not contain a proof of service. Accordingly, this Court finds that 

Plaintiff filed his objections on the date he signed the declaration attached to his objections. See 

Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2009).

Case 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK Document 20 Filed 09/17/24 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

2

Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no 

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service 

of the ruling on the parties.” Id. Including three additional days for service by mail pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate 

judge’s order of July 16, 2024, is untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 16), 

construed as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed July 16, 2024,

denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10), are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 16, 2024

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK Document 20 Filed 09/17/24 Page 2 of 2