Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

HOLLY LOUEN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-04-6556 REC SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

FURTHER REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION. 

(Doc. 102)

On May 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Further Request for

Clarification regarding the Court’s order regarding abstention

issued April 19, 2006 (the “Order”). Plaintiff states that she

“wishes to clarify if the Court’s decision on this matter is

going to be subject to sua sponte reconsideration in the

interests of justice, . . . .” At the same time, Plaintiff

concedes that “no meritorious reconsideration could be sought by

plaintiff.” 

Plaintiff has previously filed a Request for Clarification

Re: Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Abstention

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/17/06 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

2

Pending Resolution of Parallel State Court Proceedings. In

response, the Court indicated that the Order “appears to

unambiguously state the grounds for the Court’s decision on this

issue.” The Court also indicated, citing Local Rule 78-230(k),

that it would “not address the merits of a motion for

reconsideration in the absence of such a motion.”

Plaintiff has couched each of her last two filings as a

“Request for Clarification” of the Order. The categorization is

misleading, as she does not contend that the Order is in any way

ambiguous. Rather, contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, these

filings appear to be presented to the Court for another purpose,

such as to urge the Court to reconsider its Order or to determine

the Court’s amenability to granting relief, albeit without an

explicit request that the Court act. The Court will not

speculate as to any future rulings or address the merits of

requests for relief that are yet to be made. 

Plaintiff is directed to adhere to the Local Rules regarding

Civil Motion Calendar and Procedure and Applications for

Reconsideration when petitioning the Court for relief. See L.R.

78-230. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2