Hamilton v. Hart et al
Filing
55
ORDER GRANTING 54 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER Directing Clerk to Reopen Case; and ORDER Granting Plaintiff Thirty (30) Days to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/23/2015. CASE REOPENED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DENNIS HAMILTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
C/O LLAMAS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 54.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REOPEN
CASE
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
16
17
18
1:10-cv-00272-LJO-GSA-PC
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Dennis Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
20
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
21
February 18, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case was dismissed on December 16, 2014, based on
22
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to obey the court’s order requiring him to file a
23
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 50.)
24
On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion which the court construes as a motion for
25
reconsideration of the December 16, 2014 order dismissing the case. (Doc. 54.)
26
II.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
27
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that
28
justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
1
1
manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.
2
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation
3
omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his
4
control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of
5
an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or
6
circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior
7
motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
8
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
9
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
10
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
11
Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations
12
marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
13
disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already
14
considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134
15
F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a
16
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare
17
Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and
18
reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff’s Motion
19
A.
20
Plaintiff’s motion is titled “Motion Requesting Inquiry into Correctional Staff
21
Involvement into Denying Plaintiff Access to the Courts.” (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff raises concerns
22
that a Correctional Officer (C/O) changed the address on his legal mail to the court, causing the
23
mail to be returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff asserts that he gave his outgoing mail to C/O
24
Bustamante for inspection and mailing, and C/O Bustamante would always make comments
25
about Plaintiff sending so much mail. Plaintiff addressed his mail to the court using the address
26
“1130 O Street, 5th Floor, Room 500, Fresno, CA 93721.” Sometimes the mail was received
27
by the court, and sometimes the mail was returned to Plaintiff as undeliverable, with notice that
28
the address was incorrect. Plaintiff submits copies of some of his envelopes addressed to the
2
1
“1130 O Street” address, which were returned to him with portions of the address marked out.
2
(Exhibits to Doc. 54.) Plaintiff concludes that C/O Bustamante must have marked out portions
3
of the court’s address before his envelopes were mailed, causing them to be returned as
4
undeliverable.
5
Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to mail his opposition to Defendants’ motion for
6
summary judgment on November 4, 2014, but the mail was returned to him as undeliverable.
7
Plaintiff asserts that he mailed objections to Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations
8
on December 1, 2014, but the objections were returned to him as undeliverable on December
9
23, 2014.
On December 26, Plaintiff received notification that the findings and
10
recommendations had been adopted and his case was dismissed on December 16, 2014. On
11
December 28, 2014, Plaintiff mailed a notice of appeal to the court which was returned to him
12
on February 13, 2015 as undeliverable. Afterward, Plaintiff successfully mailed a notice to the
13
court which was filed on February 24, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that as soon as C/O Bustamante
14
left the building where Plaintiff was housed, Plaintiff’s legal mail began reaching the court, as
15
shown by his successful mailing of the notice filed on February 24, 2014.
16
Plaintiff argues that he was not at fault when his mail was not received by the court, and
17
he did not fail to prosecute this case. Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to respond to every
18
court order in a timely fashion, but he was hindered from doing so. Plaintiff requests that this
19
case be reopened, that his opposition to the motion for summary judgment be filed, and that this
20
case be allowed to proceed.
21
B.
22
Plaintiff has set forth facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
23
its prior decision dismissing this case. Plaintiff has shown evidence that he made a good faith
24
attempt to timely comply with the court’s orders and send documents to the court as required.
25
However, Plaintiff is advised that he has been using an incorrect address for the court. The
26
correct address is: U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Rm. 1501, Fresno, CA 93721.
27
Plaintiff should begin using the court’s correct address immediately. The fact that some of
28
Plaintiff’s mis-addressed mail found its way to the court can be explained by the fact that some
Discussion
3
1
of the mail was forwarded to the court’s correct address. The “1130 O Street” address that
2
Plaintiff was using is the court’s prior address before the court moved into a new building in
3
2006.
4
Given Plaintiff’s new evidence, the motion for reconsideration shall be granted, this
5
case shall be reopened, and Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file his opposition
6
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
7
III.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
8
The court finds that Plaintiff has shown evidence that this case should be reopened.
9
Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for
10
summary judgment of April 29, 2014.
11
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 20, 2015, is GRANTED;
13
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this case;
14
3.
Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file his
opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of April 29, 2014;
15
16
4.
Plaintiff shall use the court’s correct address for all of his mail sent to the court:
17
U.S. District Court
2500 Tulare Street, Rm. 1501
Fresno, CA 93721;
18
19
20
and
5.
21
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that
this case be dismissed.
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 23, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
4
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?