Talley v. Neotti et al

Filing 12

ORDER Vacating Judgment Entered on October 25, 2010 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b) and Granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint must be received by the Court no later than Monday, June 27, 2011. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/19/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service. Mailed Plaintiff a Court approved Form § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint. )(jer)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PERRY TALLEY,
CDCR #D-91162,

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

10-0426 BTM (JMA)

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.
GEORGE NEOTTI; S. PAULEY;
RATHERFUR; J. WALKER,

[ECF No. 11]

17

Defendants.

18
19

Perry Talley (“Plaintiff”), formerly incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional

20

Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se and has initiated this civil action

21

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the

22

$350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma

23

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2], as well as a Motion for

24

Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 3].

25

On May 3, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, but denied his Motion for

26

Appointment of Counsel and dismissed his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

27

1915A(b). See May 3, 2010 Order [ECF No. 4]. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave, however,

28

to amend his pleading. Id. at 6; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0426-60(b)&ext-SAC.wpd

-1-

10cv0426 BTM (JMA)

1

(en banc) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the

2

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”)

3

(citations omitted).) On that same day, the Court received Plaintiff’s change of address pursuant

4

to S.D.CivLR 83.11(b) indicating he had been transferred from RJD to Kern Valley State Prison

5

(“KVSP”) as of April 26, 2010 [ECF No. 5].

6

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, but on August 3, 2010, the Court again found

7

that his First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

8

1915A [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff was granted an additional 60 days leave in which to file a Second

9

Amended Complaint, but cautioned that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of the

10

entire action. See Aug. 3, 2010 Order at 4. Plaintiff failed to respond; therefore, on October 25,

11

2010, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and directed

12

the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly [ECF Nos. 8, 9].

13

On May 11, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a document entitled “Ex parte Request to File Late

14

Second Amended Complaint,” which the Court accepted for filing in light of Plaintiff’s pro se

15

status. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (“‘Strict time limits ... ought

16

not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se ... plaintiff’s incarceration

17

prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.”) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465,

18

468 (9th Cir. 1967)). In his request, Plaintiff moves the Court to set aside the judgment based

19

on “excusable negligence.” See Pl.’s Mot. at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff claims he has been on

20

lockdown at KVSP and was unable to access the prison library. Plaintiff avers he has cured the

21

deficiencies of pleading previously identified by the Court, and if granted an opportunity to do

22

so, will be able to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the Court’s Order. Id.

23

at 2.

24

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

25

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and as applicable here, “[o]n motion

26

and just terms, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for

27

... (1) mistake, inadvertance, surprise, or excusable neglect; or .... (6) any other reason that

28

justifies relief.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(1), (6). “Rule 60 is ‘remedial in nature and . . . must be

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0426-60(b)&ext-SAC.wpd

-2-

10cv0426 BTM (JMA)

1

liberally applied.’” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001)

2

(quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must

3

be made within a reasonable time –and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than one year after

4

the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1).

5

“Excusable neglect ‘encompass[es] situations in which the failure to comply with a filing

6

deadline is attributable to negligence,’ and includes ‘omissions caused by carelessness.’”

7

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.

8

v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388, 394 (1993)). To determine whether a

9

party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes “excusable neglect,” the court applies a four-factor

10

equitable test. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010). The

11

court must consider: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the

12

delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether

13

the movant acted in good faith.” Id. (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395; Briones v. Riviera Hotel

14

& Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (adopting four-part test for consideration of Rule

15

60(b) motions).

16

Here, Plaintiff claims the conditions of his confinement at KVSP prevented him from

17

complying with the Court’s deadlines regarding amendment. Because his case was in the initial

18

screening stages, no party has been served, and the Court cannot conceive of any prejudice to

19

Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that the reason for his

20

delay were penological circumstances beyond his control, and nothing in either the history of

21

this case or Plaintiff’s current request suggests bad faith. See Pl.’s Mot. at 2; Ahanchian, 624

22

F.3d at 1261.

23

Accordingly, the Court finds all four Pioneer/Briones factors weigh in favor of setting

24

aside the judgment entered on October 25, 2010 and simultaneously granting Plaintiff an

25

extension of time in which to file his Second Amended Complaint. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

26

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (court has a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants

27

do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ... technical procedural

28

requirements.”); Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0426-60(b)&ext-SAC.wpd

-3-

10cv0426 BTM (JMA)

1

dismissal of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimely where mere 30-day delay was

2

result of prison-wide lockdown).1

3

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

4

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the Judgment entered in this case on October

5

25, 2010 and GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion to Extend Time to file a Second Amended

6

Complaint [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must be received by the Court

7

no later than Monday, June 27, 2011. Moreover, Plaintiff is again cautioned that his Second

8

Amended Complaint must address all the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the

9

Court’s May 3, 2010 and August 3, 2010 Orders, and must be complete in itself without

10

reference to his previous pleadings. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.

11

Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). If Plaintiff fails to amend

12

within that time, the Court will re-enter its judgment for Defendants.

13
14
15

The Clerk of the Court is further directed to re-open this civil action and forward Plaintiff
a copy of its approved form § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint for his use and reference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: May 19, 2011

18

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

When an act must be done within a specified time, a court may extend the time for the party
to act “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”
FED.R.CIV.P. 6(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The test for whether neglect is excusable under Rule
6(b)(1)(B) is the same as under Rule 60(b)(1). See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392–93; Comm. for Idaho’s
High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 825 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996).
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0426-60(b)&ext-SAC.wpd

-4-

10cv0426 BTM (JMA)