Bledsoe v. San Joaquin County Jail et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/13/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 6/29/18 Motion for Reconsideration 9 , 10 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONNELL BLEDSOE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-0504 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On June 14, 2018, this action was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered.

18

ECF Nos. 6, 7. On June 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to re-open the case and untimely

19

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s May 21, 2018 findings and recommendations. ECF Nos. 9,

20

10. Plaintiff’s objections are untimely due to his own failure to keep the court apprised of his

21

current address, as reflected by the five entries on the court’s docket recording mail returned as

22

undeliverable prior to plaintiff’s fling a notice of change of address. Accordingly, they will be

23

construed as a motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment in conjunction with his motion

24

to re-open the case.

25

A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under

26

either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)

27

(citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)). The motion “is treated as a motion

28

to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed [within the
1

1

time provided by that Rule]. Otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a

2

judgment or order.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-

3

99 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Since plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was filed

4

within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the motion is considered under Rule 59(e).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Further, Local Rule

9

230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or

10

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,

11

or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not

12

shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4).

13

On May 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

14

recommending that the case be dismissed because plaintiff had failed to comply with Local Rule

15

183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address

16

change. ECF No. 5. The record shows that at that time, all mail that the court had attempted to

17

send to plaintiff at the San Joaquin County Jail had been returned as undeliverable and it had been

18

over sixty-three days since the first such document had been returned. Plaintiff was given

19

fourteen days from the filing of the findings and recommendations to file any objections. ECF

20

No. 5. The findings and recommendations were again served on plaintiff at the San Joaquin

21

County Jail, the only address the court had received from plaintiff, and again the documents were

22

returned as undeliverable. On June 14, 2018, the magistrate judge’s findings and

23

recommendations were adopted in full. ECF No. 6. The order and judgment were served on

24

plaintiff at San Joaquin County Jail, and were also returned as undeliverable.

25

Plaintiff was provided more than sufficient time to comply with the requirement that he

26

keep his mailing address up-to-date, but failed to do so. It was plaintiff’s responsibility to keep

27

the court up-to-date on his address and he has failed to adequately explain his failure to do so.

28

The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, which means that plaintiff is free to re-file.
2

1

Plaintiff’s claim that the case should be re-opened because he did not receive the findings and

2

recommendations as a result of his failure to update his address of record does not meet the

3

requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration or warrant a different outcome.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 29, 2018 motion for

5

reconsideration (ECF Nos. 9, 10) is denied.

6

DATED: August 13, 2018.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3