Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00474-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. DOMINGO, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00474-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 12, 13)

CASE TO REMAIN CLOSED

Plaintiff Richard Manuel Burgos, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 29, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to extend Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all

purposes and proceedings. (Consent to Magistrate, ECF No. 6.) 

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given 

leave to amend. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint on May 17, 2012. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) The Court screened the

First Amended Complaint and finding no cognizable claim dismissed this action with

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 20 Filed 01/04/13 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

prejudice and entered judgment upon dismissal. (J. on Order Dismiss., ECF Nos. 9,

10.) Plaintiff appealed the entry of judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 21, 2012 (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 11), and

concurrently filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Mot. IFP on Appeal,

ECF No. 12) and for appointment of counsel. (Mot. Appt. Counsel, ECF No. 13.)

On September 13, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis

status on appeal. (Order Granting IFP on Appeal, ECF No. 17.) The Ninth Circuit

affirmed this Court’s entry of judgment on order dismissing the action on October 16,

2012. (Order Affirming, ECF No. 18.) Mandate on the order affirming was entered on

November 8, 2012. (Mandate, ECF No. 19.) 

This case was closed upon entry of judgment on order of dismissal, as affirmed

by mandate of the Ninth Circuit. The Court has no continuing or independent jurisdiction

over this matter and motions pending therein.

 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motions for IFP on appeal

and appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12, 13) are DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed that this case shall remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 20 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2