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.

Richard Manuel Burgos v. K. Domingo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 3, 2013

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
K. DOMINGO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 12, 13)

CASE TO REMAIN CLOSED

Plaintiff Richard Manuel Burgos, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 29, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to extend Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes and proceedings. (Consent to Magistrate, ECF No. 6.)

Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to amend. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 17, 2012. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) The Court screened the First Amended Complaint and finding no cognizable claim dismissed this action with prejudice and entered judgment upon dismissal. (J. on Order Dismiss., ECF Nos. 9, 10.) Plaintiff appealed the entry of judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 21, 2012 (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 11), and concurrently filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Mot. IFP on Appeal, ECF No. 12) and for appointment of counsel. (Mot. Appt. Counsel, ECF No. 13.)

On September 13, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. (Order Granting IFP on Appeal, ECF No. 17.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's entry of judgment on order dismissing the action on October 16, 2012. (Order Affirming, ECF No. 18.) Mandate on the order affirming was entered on November 8, 2012. (Mandate, ECF No. 19.)

This case was closed upon entry of judgment on order of dismissal, as affirmed by mandate of the Ninth Circuit. The Court has no continuing or independent jurisdiction over this matter and motions pending therein.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motions for IFP on appeal and appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12, 13) are DENIED.

The Clerk is directed that this case shall remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130103

© 1992-2013 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.