Callender v. Beckel, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/21/2019 DENYING 24 Motion for relief from judgment. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCENT ANTHONY CALLENDER,

12

No. 2:17-cv-00274-KJM-CKD

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

BECKEL, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
On May 2, 2018, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

17
18

recommending this action be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint within a

19

timeframe allotted. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to file written objections to

20

the findings and recommendations. Id. at 1. No objections were filed. On May 29, 2019, the

21

court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the case without prejudice.

22

ECF No. 22. Now, on June 17, 2019, plaintiff moves for relief from judgment because of

23

apparent impediments to his ability to respond to the findings and recommendations caused by his

24

transfer to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran (“CSATF”). ECF No.

25

24.

26

Plaintiff’s motion is without merit. A motion for relief from judgment brought

27

within 28 days of entry of judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

28

“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
1

1

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

2

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners

3

v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Here, no such justification exists.

4

Although plaintiff suggests his delayed response was caused by his relocation to CSATF, the

5

court’s docket indicates plaintiff’s address was updated to his CSATF address on July 6, 2018,

6

pursuant to a “Notice of Change of Address” form filed in another of his Eastern District cases,

7

Callender v. Ramm, et al., 2:16-cv-00694-JAM-AC. On August 28, 2018, the Clerk’s Office re-

8

served the findings and recommendation at plaintiff’s updated address, and a notice of non-

9

delivery was never received. Therefore, as the record currently stands, plaintiff had fourteen days

10

from receipt of the findings and recommendations, re-served on August 28, 2018, to file

11

objections. He never did. Accordingly, because plaintiff presents no justification for relief from

12

judgment, his motion, ECF No. 24, is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 21, 2019.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2