Darden v. Spencer et al

Filing 11

ORDER Granting 9 Motion for Reconsideration and Reopening Case signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/26/2012. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALDINE DARDEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:12-cv-01001-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND REOPENING CASE (Doc. 9.) vs. TODD SPENCER, et al., ORDER FOR CLERK TO REOPEN CASE 15 Defendants. / 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Geraldine Darden (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on 19 June 21, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case was dismissed by the undersigned on August 27, 2012 for failure 20 to prosecute, based on Plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of her current address. (Doc. 7.) 21 On September 5, 2012 and October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration of 22 the Court’s order dismissing the case. (Doc. 9.) 23 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 24 Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 25 relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice 26 and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 27 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must 28 demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks 1 1 and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff 2 to show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 3 were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 4 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 5 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 6 there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 7 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, 8 and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 9 decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its 10 decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 11 Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen her case, stating that she has been housed at the 12 Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) since October 29, 1999, and she did not fail to inform 13 the court of a change of address, “because a change of address has not occurred.” (Motion, Doc. 9 14 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that she has been waiting patiently in her cell for any court documents and 15 seeks to adhere to the court’s rules. Id. Plaintiff maintains that CCWF is at fault if the court’s mail 16 was not delivered to her. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 A review of the record in this case shows that Plaintiff’s return address, on all of the 19 documents submitted to the court between June 21, 2012 and the present date, has always been 20 CCMF, P.O. Box 1501, Chowchilla, CA 93610. The court’s docket shows that the court has served 21 Plaintiff at the same CCMF address in this action since Plaintiff filed the original complaint on June 22 21, 2012. (Court Docket.) On June 27, 2012, the postal service returned two of the court’s orders 23 mailed to Plaintiff at CCMF as undeliverable, with a notation on the envelope stating that Plaintiff 24 was not located at that facility. Id. None of the court’s other orders served on Plaintiff in this action 25 have been returned in the mail. Id. 26 It appears to the court, based on the court’s record and Plaintiff’s assertions, that the 27 court’s mail was not delivered to Plaintiff due to circumstances beyond her control, resulting in the 28 dismissal of her case. Plaintiff has shown highly unusual circumstances out of her control, causing 2 1 her injury. Therefore, the court finds good cause to reconsider its order dismissing this action and 2 finds that the case should be reopened. 3 III. CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this action, 6 filed on September 5, 2012 and October 18, 2012, are GRANTED, and this case shall 7 be reopened; and 8 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reopen this case. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij October 26, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?