Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Herrera
Plaintiff
Rouch
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ROBERTO HERRERA ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROUCH, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 114)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

AMEND/SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 115)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 7 & 17.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Rouch on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical 

care claim. (ECF No. 18.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from chronic pain 

in his leg that worsens in cold weather, and that Defendant Rouch was deliberately 

indifferent to this serious medical need by refusing to provide thermal underwear. (ECF 

No. 17.)

On August 19, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the 

ground Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 81.) The motion 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 120 Filed 04/27/15 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

advised Plaintiff of his obligation to file an opposition within twenty-one days. (Id.) On 

August 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of an expert to oppose 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion and a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 84.) He did not timely file an opposition to Defendant’s motion or seek an extension 

of time to do so.

On December 11, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel and motion for appointment of an expert. (ECF No. 103.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days. 

(Id.) Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, on January 15, 2015, the undersigned issued 

findings and a recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to obey a court 

order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 104.)

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the findings 

and recommendation. (ECF No. 105.) On February 3, 2015, the undersigned took 

Plaintiff’s motion under advisement and afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause 

why his time to oppose the summary judgment motion should be extended. Plaintiff filed 

his response on February 19, 2015. (ECF No. 109.) The motion for reconsideration was 

denied on February 24, 2015. (ECF No. 110). Thereafter, on March 6, 2015, the District 

Judge assigned to the case adopted the findings and recommendation in part and 

dismissed the action for failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 

112).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 12, 2015 motion for reconsideration of the 

order denying his January 29, 2015 motion for reconsideration of the findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 114.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 16, 2015 

motion to amend/supplement the January 29, 2015 motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 

115.) 

Plaintiff seeks further reconsideration of the undersigned’s findings and 

recommendation. However, the findings and recommendation have been adopted by the 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 120 Filed 04/27/15 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

District Judge. (ECF No. 112.) The undersigned cannot provide further relief in relation to 

the findings and recommendation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for further review of his 

prior motion for reconsideration and to supplement that motion are moot. The Court 

notes that Plaintiff has filed a separate motion for reconsideration of the District Judge’s 

order adopting the findings and recommendation. (ECF No. 118.) That motion will be 

addressed by the District Judge

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF 

No. 114) and motion to amend/supplement (ECF No. 115) are HEREBY DENIED as 

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 120 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 3