Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06302/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06302-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

RONALD L. PORTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

CV F 01-6302 SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO RECONSIDER STRIKING HIS MOTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING AND

RENOTICING THE MOTION IN

CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES OF

COURT (DOCS. 121, 123)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE STATUS,

ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE

Plaintiff proceeded with counsel in this Court with an

action pursuant to Title VII for damages and equitable and

injunctive relief concerning alleged employment discrimination;

judgment was entered on January 11, 2005, and was affirmed by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court’s mandate

issued on or about May 21, 2007.

On December 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to obtain

constitutional right to due process and uphold separation of

powers, which addresses the propriety of garnishment of

Plaintiff’s wages by Defendant and of the underlying obligation

of Plaintiff to pay costs incurred by Defendant in the action.

Case 1:01-cv-06302-SMS Document 124 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 3
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

On January 4, 2008, the Court by minute order terminated and

ordered stricken from the record Plaintiff’s motion because

Plaintiff had filed the motion pro se, whereas this Court’s

docket reflected that Plaintiff was still represented by his

trial counsel. On January 4, 2008, the minute order was served by

mail on Plaintiff. 

On January 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed a document that was in

the form of a letter and in which Plaintiff requested that this

Court accept his motion because his counsel had withdrawn at the

appellate level; the motion was docketed as a motion for

reconsideration. Attached to the letter was a copy of a

substitution of counsel addressed to the Clerk of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeal in which Plaintiff substituted in pro se

in place of his counsel. The letter did not contain any

documentation of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ action taken

in connection with the substitution. However, the Court takes

note of the docket of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which

reflects that the representation of Plaintiff’s counsel

terminated on or about April 10, 2007, the date on which the

substitution was signed. Thus, Plaintiff has established that he

properly proceeds as his own counsel.

However, at the time Plaintiff filed his motion, the docket

of this Court still reflected representation of Plaintiff by his

trial counsel.

I. Directions to Clerk to Update the Docket

The Clerk of this Court IS DIRECTED to update this docket of

this Court to reflect that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and

that his address and telephone number are as noted on his motion,

Case 1:01-cv-06302-SMS Document 124 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

namely, 200 Moyer Street, Sp. B-20, Ridgecrest, California 93555,

telephone (760) 375-8693.

Plaintiff IS INFORMED Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a

party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the court

informed of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule

83-183(b) provides, in pertinent part:

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria

persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S.

Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails

to notify the Court and opposing parties

within sixty (60) days thereafter of a

current address, the Court may dismiss the

action without prejudice for failure to

prosecute.

II. Request to Accept Motion, or for Reconsideration

With respect to Plaintiff’s request to the Court to consider

his motion as pending, the Court notes that in connection with

Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff failed to set a hearing date. Local

Rule 78-230(b) provides that except as otherwise provided in the

rules or as ordered or allowed by the Court, all motions shall be

noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or

Magistrate Judge. Because the motion was not noticed on the

calendar, it is not pending before the Court. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration, or

request that this Court accept his motion, IS DENIED. This denial

is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s serving and refiling the

motion and noticing it on the Court’s calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06302-SMS Document 124 Filed 03/18/08 Page 3 of 3