Glen W. Robison v. Superior Court et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting in part 32 MOTION to Alter Judgment. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED. The Judgment (Dkt. 29) is VACATED and Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file objections to the R&R. (see document for details). (dro)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GLEN W. ROBISON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

SUPERIOR COURT, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-9959-VAP (KES)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

17
18

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff Glen W. Robison (“Plaintiff”) filed a

19

motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 32) asking the Court to vacate its earlier

20

Judgment (Dkt. 29) that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice.

21

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED to allow

22

Plaintiff to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

23

I.

24

BACKGROUND

25

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging civil rights

26

violations against five Defendants: (1) Superior Court of California (Los

27

Angeles County); (2) Governor Edmund G. Brown; (3) Jeffrey Beard

28

(Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

1

[“CDCR”]); (4) Max Huntesman (District Attorney, Internal Affairs); and

2

(5) Lee Baca ([former] Los Angeles County Sheriff). (Dkt. 1.) In accordance

3

with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), the Magistrate

4

Judge screened the Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (Dkt.

5

17.)

6

After requesting and receiving an extension of time (Dkt. 19, 20),

7

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 17, 2016. (Dkt.

8

21.) In fact, Plaintiff mailed two copies of his FAC. One was mailed to the

9

Court’s Spring Street address and accepted for filing (Dkt. 21 at 65) while the

10

other was mailed to the Department of Justice, also located at 312 N. Spring

11

Street (Dkt. 24-1 at 15.)

12

The FAC named the same five Defendants. Plaintiff alleged that his

13

constitutional rights were violated by California Assembly Bill (“AB”) 109,

14

also known as the Criminal Justice Realignment Act (which allows certain

15

inmates to serve their sentences in county jail) while he was confined at the

16

Los Angeles County Jail from October 31, 2013 through November 26, 2014.

17

(FAC ¶¶ 1, 5, 14.)

18

Upon screening the FAC, on June 23, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued

19

an R&R recommending that it be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. 23.) The 14-

20

page R&R explains why Plaintiff failed to state a claim against each

21

Defendant. (Id.) The Notice of Filing of the R&R advised Plaintiff that he

22

had until July 18, 2016, to file objections. (Dkt. 22.)

23

On July 5, 2016, the Court entered a Notice of Document Discrepancies.

24

(Dkt. 24.) That Notice alerted Plaintiff that the duplicate copy of his First

25

Amended Complaint received on June 17, 2016, was rejected for filing because

26

there was already a “First Amended Complaint on Docket #21.” (Id.) The

27

Notice has attached to it the document that was rejected. That copy of the

28

FAC bears a “received, but not filed” stamp, in contrast to the one that was
2

1

accepted for filing and bears a “filed” stamp. (Cf. Dkt. 21 at 1 and Dkt. 24 at

2

2.)

3

On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to object to the

4

R&R until August 5, 2016, which was granted. (Dkt. 25, 26.) Plaintiff had

5

apparently not yet received the Notice of Document Discrepancies, because he

6

did not mention it.

7

Plaintiff, however, eventually received the Notice and thereafter failed to

8

file objections to the R&R. On September 2, 2016, the Court accepted the

9

R&R and entered Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. (Dkt.

10

28, 29.)

11

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to move

12

for reconsideration of the Judgment. (Dkt. 30.) He explained that he received

13

the Judgment on September 7, 2016, but needed an extension of the otherwise

14

applicable 30-day deadline because he has been hospitalized. (Id. at 1.) The

15

Court granted him an extension until November 7, 2016. (Dkt. 31.)

16

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for

17

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). (Dkt.

18

32.) Plaintiff complains that (1) he was not afforded an opportunity to object

19

to the R&R, (2) his FAC was rejected without explanation via the Notice of

20

Document Discrepancies, and (3) his FAC should not have been dismissed for

21

failure to prosecute. He asks that his case be reinstated to give him an

22

opportunity to file objections to the R&R.

23

II.

24

STANDARD OF REVIEW

25

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 59 and 60, a party

26

may move for relief from the effect of a final judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ.

27

P. 59(e), 60(b). The Central District’s Local Rule 7-18 provides the grounds on

28

which a motion for reconsideration may be made, as follows:
3

1

A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may

2

be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or

3

law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in

4

the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to

5

the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision,

6

or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law

7

occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing

8

of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before

9

such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner

10

repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in

11

opposition to the original motion.

12

L.R. 7-18.

13

III.

14

ANALYSIS

15

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration presents new facts explaining

16

Plaintiff’s failure to file objections to the R&R. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s

17

motion asserts that when Plaintiff received the Notice of Document

18

Discrepancies, he did not understand that the Court was merely rejecting a

19

duplicate copy of the FAC, and that another copy had already been accepted

20

and filed. Instead, Plaintiff apparently thought that his case had been

21

summarily dismissed by the Notice of Document Discrepancies, such that

22

there was no point in his objecting to the R&R.

23

Plaintiff has no training in reading legal documents and could have

24

misunderstood the import of the Notice of Document Discrepancies. Other

25

than the deadline to object to the R&R, Plaintiff has diligently met all of the

26

deadlines in this case. The Court, therefore, accepts Plaintiff’s explanation and

27

will reopen his case so that he can file objections to the R&R.

28
4

1

IV.

2

CONCLUSION

3

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

4

32) is GRANTED. The Judgment (Dkt. 29) is VACATED and Plaintiff shall

5

have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file objections to the R&R.

6
7

Dated: November 9, 2016

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
Chief United States District Judge

8
9
10

___________________________

Presented by:

11
12
13
14

__________________________
KAREN E. SCOTT
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5