Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01336-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE BIRKS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-1336-JFM (PC)

vs.

DAVE L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, the only party to appear in this action, has

consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

See Consent to Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge, filed May 28, 2009. Plaintiff has

filed objections to and a motion for reconsideration of this court’s October 14, 2009 order

dismissing the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

On January 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered

on October 14, 2009 pursuant to the order filed the same day. On February 9, 2010, the United

States Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in an order which found, pursuant to a pre-filing

review order, that the appeal was “so insubstantial as to not warrant further review.” Order filed

February 9, 2010. The order further provides that “[n]o motions for reconsideration, rehearing,

clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be entertained in this closed

Case 2:09-cv-01336-JFM Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 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 In any event, both the objections and the motion for reconsideration are without merit. 1

2

docket.” Id. In view of that order, petitioner’s objections must be overruled and his pending

motion for reconsideration denied.1

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 26, 2009 objections are overruled; and

2. Petitioner’s December 21, 2009 motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: February 16, 2010.

12

birk1336.rec

Case 2:09-cv-01336-JFM Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2