Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02587/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02587-3/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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman,

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE REMSEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-02-2587 FCD PAN P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs, several state prisoners, filed this civil rights action seeking relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was entered in this action on June 27, 2005. On 

July 5, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On July 15, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. On September 23, 2005, the court of appeals

received notice that the filing fee for the appeal had been paid. (See Court of Appeals Docket #

05-16294.)1 It does not appear that further fees are required to prosecute the pending appeal. 

Plaintiffs motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will therefore be denied

without prejudice.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02587-FCD-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/07/06 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

 On February 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed a document styled as objections to findings

and recommendations by the magistrate judge. The record reflects that on February 8, 2006, the

magistrate judge issued an order denying a motion filed by plaintiffs on July 5, 2005, the same

day on which they filed their notice of appeal. The court construes plaintiffs’ February 21, 2006

filing as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s February 8, 2006 order.

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. 

The order of the magistrate judge will therefore be affirmed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ July 15, 2005 motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are

denied without prejudice; 

2. Plaintiffs’ February 21, 2006 objections are construed as a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s February 8, 2006 order; 

3. Upon reconsideration, the February 8, 2006 order of the magistrate judge is

affirmed; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

DATED: April 6, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02587-FCD-PAN Document 46 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2