Baughman

(PC) Womack v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 26, 20192:17-cv-02708California284 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, No. 2:17-cv-02708-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 On April 18, 2019, the magistrate judge issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit, within twenty-one days from the date of that order, the appropriate filing fee. (ECF No. 11.) On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff signed a request for reconsideration of that order. (ECF No. 12.) On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff signed an amendment to his motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 13.) Local Rule 303(b) states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of April 18, 2019, are untimely. /// ///

Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.