Robinson v. Davey et al

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 90 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Motion to Reopen Case, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/10/2022. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY L. ROBINSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
(Doc. Nos. 88, 90)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Anthony L. Robinson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On December 2, 2021, this action was dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s

22

failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court apprised of his current mailing address. (Doc.

23

No. 86.) Thereafter, on January 3, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time, which the

24

assigned magistrate judge construed as a motion to reopen this case. (Doc. No. 88.) On January

25

6, 2022, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to

26

reopen this case be denied because plaintiff failed to present “any basis under Rule 60 for

27

reopening his case.” (Doc. No. 90 at 2.) On February 2, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the

28

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 91.)
1

1

In his objections, plaintiff notes that he filed a motion for an extension of time and a

2

notice of address change with the court on December 16, 2021, but provides no explanation for

3

his delay in filing either the motion for extension of time or the notice of his address change. (Id.

4

at 2.) Local Rule 183(b) permits the court to dismiss an action if a plaintiff appearing in propria

5

persona fails to notify the court within sixty-three (63) days of an address change. As the

6

magistrate judge noted, “more than eighty (80) days passed between the time [p]laintiff’s mail

7

was returned to the court and his case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Moreover, more

8

than thirty (30) additional days passed after the dismissal before [p]laintiff notified the court of

9

his current address.” (Doc. No. 90 at 2.) Furthermore, plaintiff has not provided any reason to

10

reopen the case. As stated in the pending findings and recommendations, this action was

11

dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff may file a new complaint if he seeks to pursue his

12

claims at this time.

13

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

14

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

15

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

16

by the record and proper analysis.

17

Accordingly,

18

1.

19
20
21
22

The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 90) issued on January 6, 2022 are
adopted in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case (Doc. No. 88) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 10, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2