Hunt v. Matevousian et al

Filing 11

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case 10 ; ORDER Vacating Voluntary Dismissal and Directing Clerk of Court to Reopen Case No. 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM (PC), signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/28/16. CASE REOPENED. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE HUNT, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01560-LJOBAM (PC) (ECF No. 10) ORDER VACATING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO REOPEN CASE NO. 1:16-cv01560-LJO-BAM (PC) Plaintiff Maurice Hunt (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 19 action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 20 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). Plaintiff initiated this action on October 17, 2016. 21 On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action. (ECF No. 22 7.) On November 2, 2016, the Court ordered this case closed and noted it as voluntarily dismissed 23 without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). (ECF No. 8.) On November 18, 24 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen this action, stating that he dismissed it by 25 mistake. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has multiple cases pending, and explains that some of his 26 documents were filed with the Court under the wrong case number. Id. He also states that he 27 received multiple court orders for different cases on the same day, all which happen to have Mr. 28 Matevousian named as the defendant. Id. He further explains that, in an effort to avoid wasting 1 1 2 the Court’s time, he accidentally moved to dismiss the wrong case. (ECF No. 10.) In light of such facts, the Court finds Plaintiff’s actions understandable, and finds no 3 evidence of bad faith, intent to mislead, or intent to cause undue delay. Additionally, given that 4 the complaint had yet to be screened, reopening the case does not raise the risk of prejudice or 5 harm that would exist had this case been at a much later stage of litigation when dismissed. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case shall be granted. 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen Case Number 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM (PC) is GRANTED; and 9 10 2. The Clerk of the Court shall: 11 a. VACATE Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 7); 12 b. VACATE the Court’s order closing the case (ECF No. 8); and 13 c. REOPEN Case Number 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM (PC). 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ November 28, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?