Valenzuela #172770 v. Thude et al

Filing 33

ORDER - Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration (Docs. 29 , 30 , and 31 ) are DENIED. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 10/11/2019. (RMV)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-18-04076-PHX-DLR Andreas Thude, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider. (Docs. 29-31.) Plaintiff asks 17 the Court to reconsider its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and 18 related documents. (Docs. 23, 24, 26.) She explains that she did not comply with the 19 Court’s order to effect service on Defendants or respond to the Court’s orders to show 20 cause (Docs. 20-21) because she unexpectedly was transferred to the Arizona Department 21 of Corrections in Florence on April 30, 2019, and was placed on active suicide watch until 22 May 6, 2019. (Doc. 29 at 1; Doc. 30 at 1; Doc. 31 at 1.) She notes that she did not receive 23 the service packet (Doc. 17) or the Court’s orders to show cause (Docs. 20, 21) because 24 these documents were sent to her old address. She further alleges that she should not suffer 25 due to the Department of Correction’s failure to advise the Court of her new address. (Doc. 26 29 at 2.) 27 Pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(d), it is Plaintiff’s duty, not the Department of 28 Corrections’, to inform the Court of any change of address. (Doc. 17 at 4.) Had Plaintiff 1 contacted the Court notifying it of her recent move, it would have sent any necessary 2 documents to the new address. Plaintiff had approximately one month following her 3 release from suicide watch to notify the Court of her change of address before the Court 4 issued its first order to show cause on June 3, 2019. (Doc. 20.) In addition, the Court gave 5 Plaintiff until July 6, 2019, to address the Court’s concerns. Plaintiff did not provide the 6 Court with her updated address information during this two-month period, and the Court 7 dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice on August 1, 2019. (Doc. 23.) As a 8 result, none of the assertions made in Plaintiff’s motions provide a basis upon which to 9 reconsider that dismissal. 10 11 12 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (Docs. 29-31) are DENIED. Dated this 11th day of October, 2019. 13 14 15 16 17 Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?