Lopez-Rangel v. Copenhaver et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion for Reconsideration; Reopen this action, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/26/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISMAEL LOPEZ-RANGEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PAUL COPENHAVER, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01175 DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Document 15)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO REOPEN ACTION

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Ismael Lopez-Rangel (“Plaintiff”), a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on July 28, 2014, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for
violation of civil rights by federal actors.1

21
22
23

In a December 19, 2014, filing, Plaintiff indicated that he is a citizen of Mexico and would be
deported upon release, which was within six months. Plaintiff asked that his case be expedited in
light of his upcoming release and deportation.

24
25

On January 22, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on March 2, 2015.

26
27

According to the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, Plaintiff was released from custody on
May 4, 2015.

28
1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on August 13, 2014.

1

1

Based on Plaintiff’s notice to the Court of his upcoming release and deportation, as well as

2

his May 5, 2015, release, the Court issued an order to show cause on September 16, 2015, why the

3

action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of change of address.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

On September 23, 2015, the order to show cause was returned by the United States Postal
Service with a notation, “Undeliverable. No longer at this facility.”
Therefore, on December 9, 2015, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute by keeping the Court informed of his current address.
On January 21, 2016, the Court received a filing from Plaintiff. Plaintiff explains that on
May 4, 2015, he was transferred to Mexico, and he has not received information about this action.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s notice as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal

11

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(b). Given the circumstances, good cause exists to reopen this action

12

and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this action.

13

The Court will screen Plaintiff’s March 2, 2015, First Amended Complaint in due course.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 26, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2