Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01513-0/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

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANNON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1513 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION OF DUPLICATE CASE

NUMBERS (Doc. 6.) 

 Raymond Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 28, 2005, and returned a conformed copy to

Plaintiff. The Court then issued a formal letter of notification informing Plaintiff of the new case

number assigned to the case on November 30, 2005 and also included a consent form. Plaintiff

subsequently filed a Motion asking for clarification as to why two identical case numbers were

assigned to the case. Only one case number was assigned to the case. The return of a conformed

copy was a courtesy to Plaintiff and reflected the assigned case number. The letter was solely a

formal notification that the case number had been assigned and included direction on how

Plaintiff was to identify his case in his pleadings. There has only been one case filed as is

reflected by the case number assigned. Every court order and pleading submitted by Plaintiff

should and will contain a reference to this number. This does not mean that duplicate documents

are being filed just that all filings are to be related to this case. 

Case 1:05-cv-01513-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/25/06 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff is advised that Motions for clarification cause the court to expend a considerable

amount of judicial resources in educating and explaining things to Plaintiffs. As such they are

disfavored. The Court has literally hundreds upon hundreds of cases similar to Plaintiff’s and

cannot answer every question by every party merely seeking clarification of routine orders or

procedures. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS the Motion for Clarification is DISREGARDED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01513-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2