Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01213/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01213-1/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

PHILIP ROSATI,

Plaintiff,

v.

IGBINOSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01213-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION REGARDING TOLLING AS 

UNNECESSARY (ECF No. 3)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION REGARDING RELIEF FROM 

DEFAULT AS UNNECESSARY (ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff Philip Rosati (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his action on July 17, 2012, in the Southern District of California. The 

action was transferred to this Court. Pending before the Court is: 1) Plaintiff’s motion requesting 

equitable tolling regarding the filing of his action and 2) Plaintiff’s motion requesting relief from 

default. ECF Nos. 3, 8.

Plaintiff contends that any untimeliness in the filing of his action be tolled because of 

circumstances resulting in Plaintiff not being able to access his legal materials. ECF No. 3. The 

issue of equitable tolling is not an issue that the Court need consider at this time, as it is a matter 

concerning the statute of limitations, an affirmative defense. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as 

unnecessary.

Plaintiff also moves for the Court to not impose sanctions for failing to timely file the Court’s 

order regarding consenting or declining a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff 

Case 1:12-cv-01213-RRB Document 13 Filed 03/20/13 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

contends that it was error regarding mailing that caused the delay. Plaintiff is correct. A clerical

error regarding Plaintiff’s mail occurred, causing the delay. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as 

unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

77e0d6

Case 1:12-cv-01213-RRB Document 13 Filed 03/20/13 Page 2 of 2