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)

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