Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00723-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Plaintiff Perry C. Butler (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 32, 44.)

On April 7, 2014, the Court dismissed the action based on Plaintiff's failure to file a 

pretrial statement. (ECF No. 88.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a pretrial statement on or 

before February 28, 2014. (ECF No. 79.) He failed to do so. The Court issued an order to 

show cause, directing Plaintiff to file by March 28, 2014 a pretrial statement or show cause 

why the case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff did not respond, and on April 

7, 2014, the Court dismissed the case. 

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court rule on his motion to 

vacate the Court's prior ruling. (ECF No. 88.) He asserts that the motion to vacate was filed 

PERRY C. BUTLER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. O. ONYEJIE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-0723-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING 

COURT ISSUE ORDER ON MOTION TO 

VACATE

(ECF No. 88)

Case 1:11-cv-00723-MJS Document 89 Filed 10/26/15 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

on March 6, 2015, and has been pending for over 120 days. (Id.) The Court has no record of 

a motion to vacate being filed in this case in March, 2015. As the Court is not in possession 

of the motion to vacate it is unable to provide a ruling as requested by Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, the request for the Court to issue a ruling on the motion to vacate is 

denied without prejudice. Should Plaintiff desire the Court to vacate its dismissal of the 

complaint, he may prepare and file another motion to vacate, and the Court will address and 

rule on the motion at its earliest convenience. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00723-MJS Document 89 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2