Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675-7/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

1

 The magistrate judge informed plaintiff that the completed USM-285 forms need only

contain the business addresses of defendants, i.e. the address of the prisons where they work. In

the request for reconsideration, plaintiff states that he believes that some defendants have

transferred to different prisons. Plaintiff may put defendants’ last known business addresses on

his USM-285 forms. If defendants have transferred to different prisons, the court will issue

further orders. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FUENTES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a “request for review” of the magistrate

judge’s order filed October 26, 2005, denying his September 14, 2005, motion for the court to

respond. In this order, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s September 14, 2005, request for

extension of time. The magistrate judge granted plaintiff thirty days to complete the forms

necessary to effect service rather than the 120 days requested by plaintiff. The court construes

plaintiff’s November 4, 2005, pleading as a request for reconsideration.1

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/01/05 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

Pursuant to E.D. 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:

1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed October 26, 2005,

is affirmed;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return

the forms necessary to effect service of defendants.

DATED:November 30, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2