IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 28, 2011
LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,
CAGLE AND MACNEIL ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alfred T. Goodwin United States Circuit Judge
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S FILING NEWLY ACQUIRED INFORMATION ON DEFENDANTS
On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Newly Acquired Information (the "Notice"). (Docket No. 83.) The Notice provides further information regarding last known addresses of Defendants Cagle and MacNeil. The Notice bears a handwritten date of December 13, 2011. Under the court's November 9, 2011 order (Docket No. 79), Plaintiff was given a 30-day extension for completion of service on Defendants Cagle and MacNeil. Even under the lenient "prison mailbox rule," Plaintiff's Notice is untimely. See Pollard v. The GEO Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 843, 867 (9th Cir. 2010) (the "'prison mailbox rule' deem[s] a document filed by a pro se prisoner 'filed' as of the time the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing (rather than the time it is received by the court)" (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275 (1988))). Therefore, the court declines to reconsider the December 20, 2011 order (Docket No. 82), dismissing Defendants Cagle and MacNeil.*fn1
All terms of the court's December 20, 2011 order (Docket No. 82), including required filings in advance of the mandatory March 16, 2012 settlement conference, remain in effect.
Alfred T. Goodwin
Sitting by designation