Wooten v. California Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 38

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 35 , 37 , per Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/7/16. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GREGORY E. WOOTEN, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00570-LJO-JLT (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION PER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) (Docs. 35, 37) Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, Gregory E. Wooten, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This action was 19 closed on December 2, 2015 because Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion 20 for summary judgment, despite being ordered to do so. (Docs. 32, 33.) Some three months after 21 the case was closed, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to 22 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 35) and then on April 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed 23 another motion seeking to excuse his failure to obey orders from this Court and prosecute this 24 action, desiring direction as to how he should proceed (Doc. 37). These motions are construed as 25 motions for reconsideration of the order that dismissed this action. 26 The history that led up to dismissal of this action is straightforward. On August 3, 2015, 27 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 27.) On August 5, 2015, the Court 28 issued the Second Informational Order notifying Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose a motion 1 1 for summary judgment and that an opposition or statement of non-opposition must be filed within 2 twenty-one days of the date Defendant’s filed their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 29.) 3 Plaintiff filed neither within the requisite time. On September 29, 2015, the Court ordered 4 Plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for 5 summary judgment within twenty-one days of the date that order issued. (Doc. 30.) More than 6 twenty-one days passed and Plaintiff failed to file an opposition, a statement of non-opposition, or 7 to respond in any way to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or to the September 29, 8 2015 order. Thus, on November 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 9 recommendations for the action to be dismissed because of Plaintiff's failure to prosecute which 10 was served on Plaintiff that same day and contained notice that any objections to it were to be 11 filed within twenty-one days. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff did not file any objections and an order 12 adopting the findings and recommendation, which dismissed the action, issued on December 2, 13 2015 and judgment was entered that same day. (Docs. 32, 33.) 14 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that A[o]n motion and upon 15 such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or 16 proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 17 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in 18 time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by 19 an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.@ 20 Motions under Rule 60(b) "must be made within a reasonable time -- and for reasons (1), (2), and 21 (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." 22 Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 23 injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. 24 Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) 25 (addressing reconsideration under Rules 60(b)(1)-(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both 26 injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 27 omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or 28 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown" 2 1 previously, "what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 2 not shown" at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 4 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 5 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 6 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 7 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 8 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 9 original). After seven months of unresponsiveness, Plaintiff seeks “grace” from this Court to reopen 10 11 and allow him to proceed on his claims in this action. Plaintiff attempts to justify his neglect of 12 this action by stating that when he was released from custody in California, on a date which he 13 does not disclose, he returned to Atlanta, Georgia where he lived with a friend whose lease 14 agreement did not allow Plaintiff to receive any mail at that address. Then, on September 15, 15 2015,1 Plaintiff was arrested and spent approximately five months in the Hall County Jail. 16 Plaintiff asserts that these circumstances amounted to “hardship” and “poor adjustment to 17 society” which should excuse his failure to prosecute this action. 18 Neither of these circumstances were beyond Plaintiff’s control. Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749. 19 Plaintiff could have obtained a Post Office Box at which to receive mail and correspond with this 20 court and refrained from activities which led to his arrest in Georgia. Further, the First 21 Informational Order issued within days of Plaintiff’s filing this action. (Doc. 3.) It notified 22 Plaintiff that all court deadlines are strictly enforced and that he must request extensions of time 23 before any established deadlines lapse -- which Plaintiff did not do. It further stated that Plaintiff 24 has an affirmative duty to keep the Court and opposing counsel apprised of his address, which 25 Plaintiff also failed to do. Plaintiff’s difficult circumstances since his release are unfortunate, but 26 are insufficient to justify reconsideration of the order dismissing this action. 27 1 28 This date is notably after Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was due. 3 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 303, this 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 Court finds the December 2, 2015 order which dismissed this action as well as the findings and 4 recommendation that issued on November 3, 2015, which the December 2, 2015 adopted, to be 5 supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, filed on March 16, 2016 (Doc. 35) 7 and April 27, 2016 (Doc. 37), is HEREBY DENIED and any objections based thereon are 8 OVERRULED. 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 7, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?