Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496-0/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

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:00-CV-6496-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

LATE APPEAL

(Doc. 167)

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking leave of court to file a late appeal of Judge Coyle’s orders issued on February 8, 2005. Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Plaintiff contends that due to two address changes, he did not receive the orders

until May 26, 2005. 

The orders filed on February 8, 2005, were served on plaintiff at his address of record.

Although the orders were returned twice by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, service

of the orders was deemed effective because they were served on plaintiff at his address of record.

Local Rule 83-182(f). As a courtesy, the Clerk’s Office twice re-sent the orders in question. The

extension of this courtesy does not alter the fact that service of the orders was deemed effective when

they were served on plaintiff at his address of record on February 8, 2005.

In addition, the orders, two of which concerned discovery issues and one of which was an

order to show cause, are not final orders and are not appealable. Way v. County of Ventura, 348

F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2003); Legal Aid Soc’y of Alameda Co. v. Dunlop, 618 F.2d 48, 51 (9th Cir.

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 168 Filed 06/14/05 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

2

1980) (absent certain exceptions, discovery orders not final and not appealable). It is therefore futile

for plaintiff to file a notice of appeal of the orders and would serve only to waste judicial resources.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to file a late notice of appeal,

filed June 8, 2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 168 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2