Mazza v. Cullen et al

Filing 18

ORDER Denying Post-Judgment Motion. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BRYAN EDWARD MAZZA,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT
MOTION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-4632 EMC (pr)

V. CULLEN, Associate Warden; et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16
17

This matter is now before the Court for review of Plaintiff's post-judgment motion for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint.
Upon initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court determined that Plaintiff's

18

complaint failed to state a claim and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The

19

original deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint was May 4, 2012. See Docket # 9. At

20

Plaintiff's request, the deadline to file an amended complaint was extended to June 29, 2012. See

21

Docket # 11. At Plaintiff's further request, the deadline to file an amended complaint was extended

22

to August 27, 2012. See Docket # 13. In the Order granting the second extension of the deadline,

23

the Court wrote:

24
25
26
27
28

No further extensions of this deadline will be permitted because, by
the time it arrives, Plaintiff will have had more than four months to
prepare his amended complaint. [¶] Plaintiff's request was signed by
another inmate on his behalf. Plaintiff must sign all of his filings
unless he is represented by an attorney at law. The Court will not
accept any more filings signed by other inmates on Plaintiff's behalf.

1

Id. An amended complaint was never filed. On September 25, 2012 – almost a full month after the

2

final deadline – the Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

3

granted. See Docket # 15. Judgment was entered on that date. See Docket # 16.

4

After judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed an "appeal for time extension to file amended

5

complaint." Docket # 17. In that document, Plaintiff stated that he had been separated from his

6

jailhouse lawyer for several months and was under the impression his jailhouse lawyer was

7

preparing his amended complaint. The Court construes the motion to be a motion for

8

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion for relief from the

9

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). A motion for reconsideration under Rule
59(e) "'should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening

12

change in the law."' McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)

13

(en banc). Relief from the judgment may be granted under Rule 60(b)(1) for "mistake,

14

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

15

Plaintiff's argument that the Court should reconsider or grant relief from the judgment to

16

allow him to prepare an amended complaint is unpersuasive. The record demonstrates that

17

Plaintiff's failure to file the amended complaint was due to either an intentional choice or

18

inexcusable neglect by Plaintiff. All the orders in this case were mailed to Plaintiff, and not to his

19

jailhouse lawyer. Plaintiff thus knew or should have known of the several deadlines as well as the

20

Court's direction that he had to sign all his filings. He therefore knew or should have known at the

21

very least that he had to sign the amended complaint that had to be filed by the deadline of August

22

27, 2012. He also knew or should have known that there would be no more extensions of that

23

deadline and, even if he wanted to try for a third extension of time, he had to sign the document

24

requesting it. Notwithstanding his actual or constructive notice of the deadline that the Court had

25

clearly warned would not be further extended, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and took

26

no further steps to prosecute the action until the case was dismissed almost a month after the final

27

deadline. Even when the post-judgment document was filed, it requested yet another extension of

28

the deadline to file the amended complaint – meaning that Plaintiff still had not prepared the

2

1

document that he had known for six months that he was required to file. Plaintiff has not shown

2

newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the law that might warrant relief

3

under Rule 59(e). His failure to file an amended complaint was either an intentional choice or

4

inexcusable neglect that also does not support relief under Rule 60(b)(1). "'Neither ignorance nor

5

carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule

6

60(b)(1)." Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

7

Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992)). The motion

8

for relief from the judgment and for extension of time to file an amended complaint is DENIED.

9

(Docket # 17.) Plaintiff is reminded that the dismissal of this action was without prejudice to
Plaintiff pursuing his claim for the wrongful destruction of his paperwork in state court.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: March 11, 2013
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3