Caylor v. City of Chico, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/27/17: Plaintiff's "Notice of Objection to Order of Dismissal" 15 , is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall re-serve upon Plaintiff the court's August 18, 2016 screening order 8 . Within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in accordance with the screening order. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY MICHAEL CAYLOR,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-01857-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF CHICO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 18, 2016, the Court issued a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s

19

complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff did not file an amended

20

complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Accordingly, on October 4, 2016, the

21

Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to

22

prosecute. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff did not file objections or otherwise respond to the

23

recommendation of dismissal. On January 11, 2017, the Court adopted the findings and

24

recommendations and dismissed this action for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 13.) Judgment

25

was duly entered. (ECF No. 14.)

26

On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Objection to Order of Dismissal,”

27

explaining that he never received the court’s August 18, 2016 screening order or October 4, 2016

28

recommendation of dismissal. (ECF No. 15.) It is unknown why Plaintiff did not receive these

1

orders, as the docket reflects that Plaintiff was properly served with them both. In one of

2

Plaintiff’s early filings, however, he explained that jail staff was “refusing to mail any

3

correspondence in this matter . . . attempting to block [his] access to the courts.” (ECF No. 6.)

4

In an abundance of caution, the court will construe Plaintiff’s “Notice of Objection to

5

Order of Dismissal” as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal

6

Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 15), grant Plaintiff relief from judgment, and afford him

7

another opportunity to file an amended complaint.

8

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s “Notice of Objection to Order of Dismissal,” construed as a motion for

10
11
12

relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 15), is granted.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall re-serve upon Plaintiff the court’s August 18, 2016
screening order (ECF No. 8).

13

3. Within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in

14

accordance with the August 18, 2016 screening order (ECF No. 8). Failure to comply

15

with this order will result in another recommendation of dismissal for failure to

16

prosecute.

17
18

Dated: February 27, 2017

19
20
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2