Pina v. Lewis et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting Motion to Reconsider; Order Re-Opening Case; Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/17/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

PABLO P. PINA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-3784 RMW (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER; ORDER REOPENING CASE; DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT

16
17

On August 25, 2010, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

18

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 30, 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s

19

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the complaint with leave to

20

amend. That same day, the court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

21

days from the filing date of the order. On January 27, 2011, having received no further

22

communication from plaintiff, the court dismissed this action and closed the case. On August

23

22, 2011, plaintiff wrote a letter to the court requesting the status of his case. On September 26,

24

2011, plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

25

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not

26

a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth

27

Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “‘[T]he major

28

grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the
Order Granting Motion to Reconsider; Order Re-Opening Case; Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.10\Pina784reo.ac

1

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’”

2

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting

3

United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). Rule 60(b)

4

provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake,

5

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

6

diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

7

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

8

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

9

Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall provision” that applies only when the reason for granting

10

relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in Rule 60. Samish Indian Tribe v.

11

Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005). “It has been used sparingly as an equitable

12

remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary

13

circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous

14

judgment.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(6), a party

15

must establish “both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from

16

proceeding in a proper fashion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted); see, e.g., id. at 1160-61

17

(finding plaintiff entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because tribal non-recognition was an

18

extraordinary circumstance beyond their control which prevented them from proceeding in

19

proper fashion). “Although the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the

20

district courts . . . , as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is remedial in nature and must be liberally

21

applied.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal

22

quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).

23

Here, Plaintiff declares that he never received any orders from this court after he received

24

the clerk’s notice directing him to file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

25

That is, he never received the November 30, 2010 order granting leave to proceed in forma

26

pauperis, or order dismissing the case with leave to amend. Plaintiff also asserts he never

27

received the January 27, 2011 order of dismissal or judgment.

28
Order Granting Motion to Reconsider; Order Re-Opening Case; Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
2
P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.10\Pina784reo.ac

1

Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and RE-OPENS this

2

case. The clerk is directed to mail plaintiff a copy of the November 30, 2010 order dismissing

3

the case with leave to amend (docket no. 5), and pointing out the deficiencies within his original

4

complaint. If plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file an

5

AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

6

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 10-3784 RMW

7

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must

8

indicate which specific, named defendant(s) was involved in each cause of action, what each

9

defendant did, what effect this had on plaintiff and what right plaintiff alleges was violated.

10

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. If plaintiff files an

11

amended complaint, he must allege, in good faith, facts - not merely conclusions of law - that

12

demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under the applicable federal statutes. Failure to file an

13

amended complaint within thirty days and in accordance with this order may result in a

14

dismissal of this action.

15

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. “[A]

16

plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the

17

amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

18

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v.

19

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

20

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

21

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

22

Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do

23

so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

24

Civil Procedure 41(b).

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

28
Order Granting Motion to Reconsider; Order Re-Opening Case; Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
3
P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.10\Pina784reo.ac

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PABLO PINA,

Case Number: CV10-03784 RMW

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
LEWIS 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 November 17, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Pablo P. Pina D-28079
California State Prison-Corcoran III
P. O. Box 3476
4A 3R-8L
Corcoran, CA 93212
Dated: November 17, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk