Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01094/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01094-5/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

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

UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT

EASTERN	DISTRICT	OF	CALIFORNIA

SUSAN MAE POLK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GODINA, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01094-LJO- BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge 

screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined that 

it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18 and failed to state a 

cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted under section 1983. The Magistrate Judge 

dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 

25.)

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to April 20, 2015, to file 

her amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s request on 

January 28, 2015. (ECF No. 27.) 

On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s screening order dismissing the first amended complaint with leave to amend. 

(ECF No. 28.) On February 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request, noting that 

Case 1:12-cv-01094-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s motion was untimely and objections should have been filed on or before January 26, 

2015. (ECF No. 29.)

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s screening 

order. The objections are dated February 4, 2015. (ECF No. 30.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 303(b), a ruling by a Magistrate Judge is final if no 

reconsideration is sought within 14 days of service of the order. Local Rule 303; Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72. Here, Plaintiff filed the instant objections, which are construed as a request for 

reconsideration, more than twenty-five days after service of the Magistrate Judge’s screening 

order. Plaintiff’s request is untimely, and is HEREBY DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Dated: February 19, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

United States District Judge

Case 1:12-cv-01094-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2