White v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 37

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/9/14. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATE WHITE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0626-KJN

v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

16

On May 30, 2014, the court dismissed this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

17
18

Procedure 41(b) for failure to complete service of process and comply with court orders. (ECF

19

No. 34.)1 Thereafter, on June 5, 2014, plaintiff, now proceeding without counsel, filed a motion

20

for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case. (ECF No. 36.)
Plaintiff essentially contends that the requirements for serving the Commissioner of Social

21
22

Security were not fully or properly explained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by the

23

Clerk of Court, and/or by the court; and that he had merely inadvertently failed to include a copy

24

of the Certified Mail Receipt with his prior proof of service on the Commissioner. (See ECF No.

25

33.) Having now submitted the actual Certified Mail Receipt to the court, plaintiff claims that it

26

would be unjust to punish him for “missing an unexplained detail in the process of serving the

27
28

1

The protracted procedural history of this case and the reasons for the Rule 41(b) dismissal have
been previously outlined in great detail (ECF Nos. 26, 34) and need not be repeated here.
1

1

Commissioner.” (ECF No. 36 at 1.) Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive for two primary

2

reasons.

3

First, plaintiff’s claim that the requirements for serving the Commissioner were never

4

fully or properly explained to him is devoid of merit. As an initial matter, it is plaintiff’s own

5

duty to familiarize himself with the requirements for serving the Commissioner of Social Security

6

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Clerk’s Office employees are not permitted to

7

dispense legal advice. Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

8

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney
is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on
“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria
persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal,
judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these
Rules.

9
10
11
12

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the

13

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). Nonetheless,

14

because the court was cognizant of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court’s May 8, 2014 order

15

granting plaintiff an additional 14 days to complete service of process specifically referred

16

plaintiff to the court’s previous January 8, 2014 order outlining in detail how to accomplish

17

service of process on the Commissioner2 and expressly directed the Clerk of Court to serve a

18

copy of that prior order on plaintiff. (ECF No. 32 at 3-4.) The court’s records reflect that the

19

court’s January 8, 2014 order (ECF No. 16) was indeed served on plaintiff by mail on May 8,

20

2014, along with additional copies of the process documents and the May 8, 2014 order. Because

21

plaintiff responded to the court’s May 8, 2014 order by filing a further proof of service on May

22

20, 2014 (ECF No. 33), there is no question that plaintiff received the packet of orders and

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The January 8, 2014 order, which at that time was directed to plaintiff’s former counsel after his
numerous defective attempts at service of process, outlined the specific entities to be served, their
addresses, and the methods of service required, by reference to the applicable provisions of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 16 at 1-2.) Apart from mailing the process
documents itself, which the court obviously cannot do for a litigant, the court is at a loss as to
how this information could have been conveyed in a clearer fashion. The only reasonable
inference that can be drawn is that neither plaintiff’s former counsel nor plaintiff himself had
actually read the court’s orders.
2

1

process documents from the Clerk of Court. As such, plaintiff cannot credibly claim that the

2

court did not inform him of the requirements for serving the Commissioner with process. In any

3

event, even if he did not receive any guidance from the court, it is plaintiff’s obligation to

4

familiarize himself with the applicable procedural requirements.

5

Second, even if the court were to now consider the Certified Mail Receipt attached to the

6

motion for reconsideration, that receipt does not demonstrate that service of process was properly

7

accomplished. The Certified Mail Receipt indicates that plaintiff served certain documents on the

8

Commissioner at a Richmond, California address. (ECF No. 36 at 4.) That address is not one of

9

the three addresses at which the Commissioner must be served as required by the Federal Rules of

10

Civil Procedure and as outlined in detail in the court’s prior orders. (See ECF No. 16 at 1-2.)

11

Therefore, even at this late juncture, plaintiff has yet to properly complete service of process on

12

the Commissioner.

13

To summarize, plaintiff’s former counsel failed to properly complete service of process

14

despite several extensions and instructional orders from the court. Nonetheless, upon plaintiff’s

15

counsel’s termination, the court did not fault plaintiff for the shortcomings of his prior counsel,

16

and instead provided plaintiff himself with another opportunity to complete service of process

17

(along with appropriate instruction as to how to accomplish the service of process). However,

18

when plaintiff himself then also failed to complete service of process, the court dismissed the

19

case, because, at some point, leniency must give way to considerations of limited court resources,

20

fairness to other compliant litigants, and consistent enforcement of the court’s rules and orders.
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

21
22

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

23

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

24

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). None of these factors, or any other unusual

25

circumstances warranting reconsideration, are present here.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 36) is denied.

28

////
3

1
2
3
4

2. No further motions or requests for reconsideration will be entertained, and any such
future filings will be summarily disregarded in this already-closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2014

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4