Backus v. State of California
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/14/11 ORDERING that Given the entry of judgment in this case, the above-listed motions on thecourt's electronic docket (Dkt Nos. 15 , 19 , and 22 ) are denied as moot.The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate all dates in this case.(Becknal, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BARTLEY S. BACKUS,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-cv-01672 JAM KJN PS
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15
Defendant.
ORDER
/
16
17
On June 29, 2011, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in
18
forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 3.) At that time, the undersigned also screened plaintiff’s
19
pleading and, through Findings and Recommendations, recommended that plaintiff’s case be
20
dismissed with prejudice on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Dkt. No. 3.)1 On
21
November 14, 2011, District Judge John A. Mendez adopted the undersigned’s proposed
22
Findings and Recommendations in full, and dismissed plaintiff’s action with prejudice. (Dkt.
23
No. 23.) The Clerk of the Court entered judgment the same day. (Dkt. No. 24.)
24
A review of the court’s docket reflects that several motions were pending at the
25
1
26
This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
time judgment was entered in this case: plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order to Arrest and Prosecute
2
David Lawicka” (Dkt. No. 15), defendant State of California’s “Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. No.
3
19), and plaintiff’s “Motion” requesting that the United States Marshal’s Service “serve
4
subpoenas” (Dkt. No. 22). Because judgment has been entered and because the case is now
5
closed (Dkt. Nos. 23-24), the above-listed motions are denied as moot, and any pending hearing
6
dates in this case are vacated.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
9
Given the entry of judgment in this case, the above-listed motions on the
court’s electronic docket (Dkt Nos. 15, 19, and 22) are denied as moot.
10
2.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate all dates in this case.
DATED: November 14, 2011
13
14
15
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
