Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01154/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01154-26/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. STATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-1154 MCE DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. On January 29, 

2015, this court granted plaintiff’s motion to withdraw or amend his admissions pursuant to Rule 

36(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered plaintiff to re-serve his responses to 

defendant’s requests for admission within thirty days. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion seeking 

a court order directing defense counsel to re-serve on plaintiff defendant Medina’s requests for 

admission. On March 6, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a court order and directed 

defense counsel to re-serve on plaintiff defendant Medina’s requests for admission. On March 

12, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to comply with the court’s January 29, 

2015 order. It appears that plaintiff did not have either a copy of the court’s March 6, 2015 order

or defendant Medina’s requests for admission at the time he filed this most recent request. 

Accordingly, the court will deny his March 12, 2015motion for an extension of time without 

prejudice. 

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 173 Filed 03/30/15 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

In his motion, plaintiff also asks for reconsideration of the court’s determination that he 

failed to exhaust his excessive use of force claim based on a “supporting document” not 

previously considered. Plaintiff has not explained why he believes he is entitled to 

reconsideration of this court’s ruling issued back on September 16, 2013, and has also not 

attached any “supporting document” to his motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for 

reconsideration will therefore be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 172) is denied without prejudice; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 172) is denied.

Dated: March 27, 2015

DAD:9

herr1154.36d

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 173 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 2