Herman D. Shead v. Vang et al

Filing 108

ORDER on Plaintiff's 107 Motion for Reconsideration, ORDER for Service by Mail on Pro Se Plaintiff signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 07/20/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
HERMAN D. SHEAD

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
C/O VANG et al.,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION, ORDER
FOR SERVICE BY MAIL ON PRO SE
PLAINTIFF

11
Defendant.
12 __________________________________/
13

(Doc. No. 107)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On May 8, 2015, Herman D. Shead (“Plaintiff”) filed a Rule 60(b) motion alleging that
his counsel (“Counsel”) both abandoned him and misled him to believe that Plaintiff was still
being represented. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 105. Plaintiff asserted entitlement to relief
under 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) in his motion. Id. at 3.
On June 30, 2015, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s claim for relief under
Rule 60(b)(1), and ordered additional briefing for his Rule 60(b)(6) claim. See Doc. 106.
On July 16, 2015, the Court received a second Motion for Reconsideration from Plaintiff
that failed to respond to the Court’s Order for Additional Briefing. See Doc. 107.
Upon review, Plaintiff did not receive the Order for Additional Briefing because it was
only served upon Counsel. Plaintiff therefore lacked notice of the Court’s order. Accordingly,
the Court will order that its previous Order for Additional briefing and the instant order shall be
served on Plaintiff in his current address at San Quentin State Prison by mail.
Further, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s second Motion for Reconsideration because it is
duplicative of his first motion. Cf. Doc. 107 with Doc. 105. Plaintiff’s latest Motion for
1

1 Reconsideration alleges that Counsel’s practice recently dissolved, and that its clients were “left
2 to fend for themselves” without notification. See Doc. 107 p. 1. However, the Court will
3 consider this information when resolving Plaintiff’s original Motion for Reconsideration. The
4 Court emphasizes that its denial of the latest motion (Doc. 107) will not impact resolution of the
5 original Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 105).
6

ORDER

7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 107) is DENIED as duplicative of his

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

original motion (Doc. 105);
(2) the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 106) shall be served on
Plaintiff by mail at his current address at San Quentin State Prison;
(3) this order shall be served on Plaintiff by mail at his current address at San Quentin
State Prison;
(4) Plaintiff Shall respond to the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc.
106) by August 13, 2015; and
(5) failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to that order will result in the denial of
Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion without further notice.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: July 20, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2