Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05802/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05802-5/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

FREDERICK JONES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOLENE VENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-5802 OWW DLB P

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Before the Court is the December 12, 2005, “Request for

Reconsideration by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of District

Judge Oliver W. Wanger Ruling and Order” and “Notice of Motion

for Objections.” 

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

rights action. The action was dismissed with prejudice November

1, 2005, after Plaintiff was given full explanation about the

deficiencies in his original complaint and provided two

opportunities to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff now attaches a Third Amended Complaint filed in

violation of the recommendation for dismissal without leave to

amend by the Magistrate Judge filed September 7, 2005. Although

Plaintiff filed objections on October 11 and 12, 2005, to the

Case 1:04-cv-05802-OWW -DLB Document 37 Filed 12/12/05 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

Magistrate Judge’s Amended Findings and Recommendations to

dismiss his case with prejudice, which were fully considered in

the District Court’s order of November 1, 2005, dismissing this

case with prejudice, he refers to his Third Amended Complaint

which was lodged with the court October 7, 2005. The Third

Amended Complaint for damages “at law and in admiralty and in

maritime” under various iterations of the Civil Rights Act is

referred to as “this action is to condemn property, seize bank

accounts, payroll checks, and seize all assets. Property to

seize new jail being built in Kings Co., Hanford, CA. Department

of party real iste DMV cars, motor homes, e.t.c., (bank accounts,

savings accounts/payroll checks);” lodged with the Court October

7, 2005.

The Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint reiterates the same

claims about alleged denial of access to the law library but does

not show how this resulted in the dismissal of any case or other

cognizable prejudice. Plaintiff further claims that he did not

receive appropriate medical care but does not state an

intelligible or understandable claim as to when or how medical

treatment was denied. Plaintiff complains about his sentencing

and a cell extraction occurring, without “his legal materials.” 

There is no showing that any of the claims in the nature of

habeas corpus have ever been exhausted. 

The Second Amended Complaint was previously dismissed with

prejudice on November 1, 2005. No error in law appears. No new

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05802-OWW -DLB Document 37 Filed 12/12/05 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

facts or law have been cited. Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 7, 2005.

_/s/OliverW. Wanger

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

jones v. vento order

Case 1:04-cv-05802-OWW -DLB Document 37 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 3