Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01820-19/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. JORDAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1820 LKK KJM P

vs.

CAL. A TERHUNE, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed an order finding service of

plaintiff’s amended complaint appropriate for some, but not all, of the defendants listed in that

document.

On December 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of that order.

On January 5, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the order of December 8, 2005.

On February 28, 2006, the Court of Appeal entered judgment dismissing the

appeal.

On March 30, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the order of December 8, 2005.

On April 24, 2006, this court denied plaintiff’s January 5 and March 30, 2006

objections as untimely.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 146 Filed 12/12/06 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

On May 19, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 8,

2005 order.

On July 12, 2006, plaintiff filed another motion for reconsideration of the

December 8, 2005 order.

On August 23, 2006, this court denied plaintiff’s May 19, 2006 motion.

On September 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of the August 23,

2006 order.

On October 19, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed plaintiff’s second

interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Once again, plaintiff’s July 12, 2006 motion for reconsideration is untimely. 

Even if it were timely, however, the request would be denied on the merits. Pursuant to Local

Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate

judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court's

order of December 8, 2005 is affirmed. No further requests for reconsideration of this order will

be entertained. 

DATED: December 11, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 146 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2