IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 12, 2012
ROBERT BENYAMINI, PLAINTIFF,
T. FORSTHY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On June 8, 2012, plaintiff filed a document styled, "Motion for Correction and Reconsideration of Order dated May 31-2012." (Doc. No. 54.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
This civil rights action was closed on June 1, 2012. On that date the assigned District Judge adopted the undersigned's findings and recommendations of April 17, 2012, and dismissed this action due to plaintiff's repeated failure to complete and submit the USM-285 forms that he had been provided along with copies of his amended complaint, which were required in order to effect service on the defendants.*fn1 (Doc. No. 52.) Judgment was entered in this action on that same day. (Doc. No. 53.)
Plaintiff's hand-written motion for reconsideration dated June 5, 2012 and received by the court on June 8, 2012, is difficult to decipher. It appears that therein plaintiff complains about difficulties he has encountered in identifying, for purposes of service, the defendants named in his original complaint, being denied access to his legal property at times and not receiving legal mail on a timely basis after being transferred to different institutions and facilities.
As noted in the court's previous findings and recommendations and orders, this action was initiated by plaintiff in August of 2009 and since April 28, 2011, plaintiff has repeatedly disregarded the court's orders to submit a completed USM-285 form with respect to each of the seven named defendants upon which the court had authorized service. It is plaintiff's own repeated failure over a year long period to comply with that order which finally resulted in the dismissal of this action on June 1, 2012. Nothing in the pending motion for reconsideration explains plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the court's orders which would have been easily complied with, even without access to his legal materials.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a stay filed April 17, 2012 (Doc. No. 50), is denied for the reasons set forth in the assigned District Judge's order of June 1, 2012. (See Doc. No. 52 at 1, n.1);
2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration filed June 8, 2012 (Doc. No. 54) is denied; and
3. Plaintiff is advised that any further documents he files after the date this action was closed will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings.*fn2