Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192-6/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

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-5192-REC-SMS-P 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION AND DENYING REQUEST

TO MODIFY ORDER, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 124)

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act). On

November 8, 2004, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim(s), equal

protection claim, due process claim(s), section 1985 and section 1986 claims, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress claim, with prejudice, for failure to state claims upon which relief

may be granted. (Doc. 55.) On October 3, 2005, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification of the order and modification of the order to dismissal

without prejudice. (Doc. 124.) Defendants did not file a response to the motion.

Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed from this action with prejudice. (Doc. 55.) The dismissal

with prejudice does not reflect an error and the Court will not modify its order to a dismissal without

prejudice. Plaintiff is not precluded from appealing the dismissal of his claims with prejudice.

However, plaintiff must wait until this action is entirely over and judgment has been entered before

he is entitled to appeal the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. Judgment has not been entered and

will not be entered until this action is concluded. This Court already considered and denied

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 133 Filed 11/02/05 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

27

28

2

plaintiff’s request for early entry of final judgment as to the dismissed claims. (Doc. 75.) Further,

the previous entry of judgment referred to by plaintiff was due to a clerical error and has been

vacated. (Docs. 58, 61.) Both the undersigned and the Magistrate Judge already explained this to

plaintiff. (Docs. 61, 69.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is GRANTED, but plaintiff’s motion to modify the

order dismissing his claims with prejudice to one dismissing the claims without

prejudice is DENIED, with prejudice;

2. No further motions filed prior to the conclusion of this action (including but not

limited to motions for clarification or reconsideration) relating to the dismissal of

these claims will be considered by the Court; and

3. Any such motions will be stricken from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 133 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2