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)
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?