Crumly v. Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 21 Motion for Relief. The Motion for Relief is DENIED. The Court notes that this case was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mr. Crumly is free to file a new case against the Social Security Administration. However, any new complaint must correct the deficiencies previously identified in order to state a claim.(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ROBERT CRUMLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02969-WHO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 21

Plaintiff Robert Crumly filed a Motion for Relief from this Court’s November 21, 2013,

12

Order dismissing his case for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 21. The Motion for Relief is

13

currently set for hearing on January 22, 2014. The Court finds this matter appropriate for

14

resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

15

On October 11, 2013, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

16

Judge Spero, concluded that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any cause of action, and dismissed

17

the complaint with leave to amend. Docket No. 15. Mr. Crumly was told what was missing from

18

his complaint. For example, he needed to identify the specific decision of the Social Security

19

Administration that he wanted to challenge and show that the challenged decision was final. And

20

if he intended to state fraud or other tort claims against the Social Security Administration, he

21

needed to allege facts showing he had submitted a claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

22

Docket No. 11 at 8-10. The Court warned Mr. Crumly that he needed to file an Amended

23

Complaint by November 8, 2013, or else the Court would dismiss his case for failure to prosecute.

24

Docket No. 15 at 2-3.

25

On October 18, 2013, the Court ordered that Mr. Crumly be given another copy of Judge

26

Spero’s Order, and reminded Mr. Crumly of his obligation to file an Amended Complaint by

27

November 8, 2013. Docket No. 16.

28

Mr. Crumly did not file an Amended Complaint by November 8, 2013, and did not

1

communicate with the Court or explain why he could not meet that deadline. On November 21,

2

2013, the Court dismissed this case for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 19.

3

Mr. Crumly now asks the Court to reinstate his case, arguing that he should not have been

4

required to respond to the frivolous and erroneous Report and Recommendation and arguing that

5

his complaint is “clear.”
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment

6
7

“if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court

8

committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an

9

intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555

10

F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).1 None of these factors is present here.
Mr. Crumly was given clear direction on what was missing from his complaint and

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

repeatedly told that he needed to file an amended complaint by November 8, 2013. He did not

13

comply with the Court’s orders and has not, even as of this date, attempted to file an amended

14

complaint or explain how he can address the problems identified with his initial complaint.
The Motion for Relief is DENIED. The Court notes that this case was dismissed

15
16

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mr. Crumly is free to file a new case against the Social Security

17

Administration. However, any new complaint must correct the deficiencies previously identified

18

in order to state a claim.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Similarly, Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a court order where one or more of the
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3)
fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any
other reason justifying relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Although couched in broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a
showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp. v.
Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.1981). None of the factors justifying reconsideration are
present.
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CRUMLY,

Case Number: CV13-02969 WHO

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
SOCIAL SECURITYY ADMINISTRATION,
et al,
Defendant.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 15, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said
copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Robert Crumly
P.O. Box 11406
Berkeley, CA 94712

Dated: January 15, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jean Davis, Deputy Clerk