Hernandez v. Thomas
Filing
68
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/27/19 GRANTING 65 plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment. The order 63 adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and 64 the judgment are VACATED. Plaintiff shall have 14 days to file objections to 58 the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff's 66 request for the address of the Ninth Circuit and for an appeal form is DENIED without prejudice, as moot. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-01803-KJM-DMC
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
THOMAS,
Defendant.
15
16
17
The court entered judgment against plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, on
18
August 9, 2019, after adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, ECF No.
19
58, and granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 63, 64. Although plaintiff was
20
previously granted a fourteen-day extension of time, he did not object to the findings and
21
recommendations recommending the court grant defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 60.
22
Four days after the court entered judgment, plaintiff filed a request for relief from
23
judgment, explaining he missed the deadline to file objections, because the El Dorado County
24
Jail, where he was incarcerated, did not furnish him adequate legal resources, such as blank paper
25
and pre-paid envelopes, until after the deadline passed. Mot., ECF No. 65, at 3. Defendant
26
opposes, arguing plaintiff had several months to file objections to the findings and
27
recommendations before the court entered judgment, but failed to do so.
28
1
1
Given plaintiff’s incarceration and pro se status, the court finds his inability to file
2
timely objections due to lack of legal resources at El Dorado County Jail constitutes “excusable
3
neglect” for which relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). See
4
Stutesman v. Campbell, 2007 WL 779754, * 2 (E.D. Cal. March 14, 2007) (finding
5
excusable neglect in filing of untimely appeal based upon prisoner’s limited access to the prison
6
library, “during which time he ‘diligently sought research on the application to appeal on the
7
mechanics of requesting a Certificate of Appealability’ and on ‘procedural bars and defaults.’”);
8
Tate v. Wiggins, No. 3:18-CV-230, 2019 WL 2716897, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 28, 2019) (noting
9
inability to access legal resources to look up a deadline would counsel in favor of finding
10
“excusable neglect”). Furthermore, the motion was filed within a reasonable time after judgment
11
was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a
12
reasonable time . . . .”).
13
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is GRANTED. The order
14
adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, ECF No. 63, and the entry of
15
judgment, ECF No. 64, is VACATED. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to file objections to
16
the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 58. This order resolves ECF No. 65.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff’s request for the address of the Ninth Circuit and for an appeal form, ECF
No. 66, is DENIED without prejudice, as moot, given the court’s conclusion above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 27, 2019.
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?