Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00556/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00556-9/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

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-00556-GEB-DAD

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis. Pending are multiple dismissal motions in which 

certain Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended 

Complaint, arguing it is barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. (See ECF Nos. 84, 85, 88, 93, 96, 101.) 

On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed an “Appeal to the U.S. 

Eastern District Judge,” in which Plaintiff references multiple 

motions he filed, which were denied in the Magistrate Judge’s 

Orders dated March 2, 2015, and April 16, 2016, and indicates his 

desire to obtain a ruling on the referenced dismissal motions. 

(Pl.’s Appeal, ECF No. 112.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks in his 

“appeal” reconsideration under Local Rule 303(c) of the 

Magistrate Judge’s March 2, 2015 and April 16, 2016 Orders, 

Plaintiff has not shown that any portion of those orders is 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, reconsideration 

Case 2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB Document 113 Filed 05/28/15 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

of those orders is DENIED. 

Further, to the extent Plaintiff also seeks in his 

“appeal” a ruling on the referenced dismissal motions by a 

specified date, that request is DENIED. 

Dated: May 28, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB Document 113 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2