Edmonds v. Alameda County District Attorney et al

Filing 17

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Amended Complaint due by 5/9/2013.. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/8/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CRAIG A. EDMONDS, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,

16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-4320 LHK (PR)
ORDER DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT

17
18

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal civil

19

rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2011, the Court dismissed the

20

complaint with leave to amend, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

21

days, or face dismissal of this action. On November 3, 2011, the order was returned to the Court

22

as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no longer in custody. On December 6, 2011, the Court

23

directed Plaintiff to file a notice of intent to prosecute and provide a current address. That mail

24

was returned as undeliverable on December 13, 2011. On January 6, 2012, the Court dismissed

25

this action without prejudice and entered judgment. These final orders were returned as

26

undeliverable on January 18, 2012.

27
28

Close to one year later, on December 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting status of
his case. (Docket No. 14.) Then, on January 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the

Order Directing Plaintiff to Filed Amended Complaint
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Edmonds320recon.wpd

1

order of dismissal, which this Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. In his motion,

2

Plaintiff states that, on October 21, 2011, he was transferred to San Quentin State Prison, and

3

then to San Mateo County, and back to San Quentin State Prison, where he currently is

4

incarcerated. Plaintiff alleges that he has not received any forwarded mail.

5

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1)

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Cir.1993). Such a motion must be made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief

11

(1) - (3), no later than one year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

12

“Although the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the district courts . . . ,

13

as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is remedial in nature and must be liberally applied.” TCI Group

14

Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and

15

ellipsis omitted).

16

The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration unless and until he

17

files an amended complaint within thirty days, as the Court previously instructed on January 6,

18

2012. To aid Plaintiff in this endeavor, the Clerk shall mail Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the

19

Court’s January 6, 2012 order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff

20

comply with this order in a timely manner, upon receipt of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the

21

Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and re-open this action. If, however,

22

Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days of the filing date of this order,

23

this case will remain closed.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

4/8/13

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28
Order Directing Plaintiff to Filed Amended Complaint
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Edmonds320recon.wpd

2