Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terrylyn Mccain v. California Highway Patrol

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 18, 2011

TERRYLYN MCCAIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The court is in receipt of two documents filed by plaintiff that arguably constitute applications for reconsideration of two orders previously entered by the undersigned. Those documents are entitled: (1) "Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #23" (Dkt. No. 30); and (2) "Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #29" (Dkt. No. 31). To the extent that plaintiff intended these documents to serve as applications for reconsideration by the undersigned of orders entered on June 29, 2011, and July 8, 2011, respectively, such applications are summarily denied.

In an order entered June 29, 2011, the undersigned denied two motions to strike filed by plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which impermissibly sought to strike a motion to dismiss filed in this action. (See Order, June 29, 2011, at 2-3, Dkt. No. 23.) Similarly, in an order entered July 8, 2011, the undersigned denied four additional motions to strike filed by plaintiff pursuant to Rule 12(f), which again impermissibly sought to strike moving papers filed by defendants in this action. (See Order, July 8, 2011, Dkt. No. 29.) Although plaintiff's recently filed documents seeking "revocation" of these orders are difficult to understand, the undersigned concludes that no new or different facts are claimed to exist that would support withdrawing or otherwise altering the orders entered June 29, 2011, and July 8, 2011. See E. Dist. Local Rule 230(j).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff's documents entitled "Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #23" (Dkt. No. 30) and "Notice to Revoke Order Document No. #29" (Dkt. No. 31) constitute applications for reconsideration by the undersigned of the court's orders entered on June 29, 2011, and July 8, 2011, such applications are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110718

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.