Savala v. Mims et al
Filing
14
ORDER denying 13 Motion for reconsideration; for clerk to update Plaintiff's address and send him a habeas petition form signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/16/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD J. SAVALA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
1:13-cv-01632-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 13.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO UPDATE
PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS AND SEND HIM A
HABEAS PETITION FORM
16
17
I.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18
Richard J. Savala, Sr. ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
19
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
20
October 10, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge
21
jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an
22
appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the
23
Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case
24
until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
25
On April 14, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing this case, with prejudice, for
26
failure to state a claim, and entered judgment. (Docs. 11, 12.) On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed
27
a motion titled “Motion to Suppress,” which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration
28
of the court’s order dismissing this action. (Doc. 13.)
1
1
II.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2
Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,
3
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
4
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
5
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
6
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies
7
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
8
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”
9
exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and
10
citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond
11
his control . . . .”
12
reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different
13
facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such
14
prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In seeking
15
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
16
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
17
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
18
Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations
19
marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
20
disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already
21
considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134
22
F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a
23
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare
24
Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and
25
reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff’s Motion
26
A.
27
Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s order of April 14, 2014, arguing that he
28
was homeless between October 28, 2013 and March 7, 2014, at which time he was re-arrested
2
1
and taken into in custody at the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff argues that his lawsuit “must fall
2
under the Paper Rule set forth by the U.S. Courts.” (Motion at 1.) Plaintiff also argues that
3
since fewer than thirty days elapsed between the date of court’s order and the date of his re-
4
arrest, he should be allowed a thirty-day grace period. Plaintiff also requests legal paper and a
5
habeas petition form from the Clerk of Court.
6
B.
7
On March 7, 2014, the court issued an order in this action dismissing Plaintiff’s
8
Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty
9
days. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the
10
court’s order within the thirty-day deadline. (Court Record.) On April 14, 2014, the court
11
issued an order dismissing this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11.)
12
The court’s order held that “[b]ecause Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the Court
13
dismisses the claims made in the original complaint with prejudice for failure to state a federal
14
claim upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th
15
Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to
16
dismissing for failure to state a claim).” (Doc. 11 at 1-2.)
Background
17
C.
18
Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s homelessness alone does not excuse
19
him from responding to court orders.1 The court is unaware of the “Paper Rule” referred to by
20
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff cites no authority supporting the assertion that he should be allowed a
21
thirty-day grace period because fewer than thirty days elapsed between the date of the order to
22
dismiss and the date of his re-arrest. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be
Discussion
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Nor does Plaintiff’s homelessness excuse him from providing the court with an address where he can
receive mail. Local Rules 182(f) and 183(b) require pro se litigants to inform the court of their addresses and to
keep the court informed of any change in their addresses. Plaintiff was informed of these rules in the court’s
informational order of October 11, 2013, and forewarned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to update his
address. (Doc. 3 at 5 ¶VIII.) Plaintiff was also notified that documents served at his address of record would be
deemed received even if not actually received. (Id.)
3
1
denied. However, Plaintiff’s request to be provided with a habeas petition form shall be
2
granted.
3
III.
CONCLUSION
4
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 15, 2014, is DENIED; and
6
2.
The Clerk is directed to:
7
(1)
Update Plaintiff’s address to:
8
Richard J. Savala
TD# 1838386, BK# 1420007
Fresno County Jail
P.O. Box 872
Fresno, CA 93712-0872
9
10
11
and
12
(2)
Send Plaintiff a form petition for writ of habeas corpus.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
16
May 16, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?