Riley v. Tallerico, 1:16-cv-01189-AWI-EPG (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180521579
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULING (ECF NO. 67) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Shannon Riley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for ruling. (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff asks the Court to rule on his motion for confidential calls (ECF No. 61), his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 66), and any other motions that were outstandin
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULING (ECF NO. 67) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Shannon Riley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for ruling. (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff asks the Court to rule on his motion for confidential calls (ECF No. 61), his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 66), and any other motions that were outstanding..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULING
(ECF NO. 67)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Shannon Riley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for ruling. (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff asks the Court to rule on his motion for confidential calls (ECF No. 61), his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 66), and any other motions that were outstanding at the time.
Plaintiff's motion for confidential calls was granted in part (ECF No. 68), and his motion for reconsideration was denied (ECF No. 71). There were no other outstanding motions at the time Plaintiff filed this motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs motions have already been ruled on, and this motion is now moot.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for ruling is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
