Terrell v. Williams et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Rule 60(b) Motion. The motion for relief from the Court's dismissal Order is granted. The Order of March 7, 2018, is hereby vacated. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case and place it on the ac tive docket. Plaintiff is directed to file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff's motion for a stay in the proceedings is denied. The Clerk is further directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of this Order, the Court's November 22nd Order (doc. 17), and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (doc. 9), to Gwinnett County Detention Center, 2900 University Pkwy., Lawrenceville, GA 30043 and to Autry State Prison, P.O. Box 648, Pelham, GA 31779. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/19/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

MARCUS ANTHONY TERRELL,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

CV 617-104

■k

DOUG WILLIAMS, Warden at Smith
State Prison; MS. THOMPSON,

*
*

Smith State Mail Room Official;

*

CAPTAIN WICKER, Smith State
Prison; JOHN DOE OFFICIALS,

*
*

Smith State Prison; OFFICER
BEAR; and UNKNOWN INSURANCE

*
*

PROVIDERS,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Pending before the

for

relief

from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) .

(Doc.

25. )

Order

In

short.

Court

Plaintiff

is

seeks

Plaintiff's motion

relief

from

the

Court's

dismissing his case for failure to prosecute and requests a stay

in the proceedings.

For the reasons set forth below.

Plaintiff's

motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I.

Plaintiff,

a

state

BACKGROUND

prisoner

proceeding

pro

se,

filed

this

case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting the conditions of his
confinement at Smith State Prison.

(See generally Compl.,

Doc.

1.)

He requested leave to proceed 2^ forma pauperis C'lFP"), but

the Court deferred ruling on that motion until Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint that stated his claims more coherently than his
original 164-page complaint.
4.)

(Order of Aug. 17, 2017, Doc. 5, at

Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, but the United States

Magistrate Judge found it suffered from the same inadequacies as
his

original

prejudice.
6.)

and

recommended

dismissal

without

(Report & Recommendation ("R&R"), Doc. 14, at 2, 5-

Plaintiff

clarified

complaint

for

filed
the

originally alleged.

an

Objection

Court

the

to

the

R&R,

constitutional

which

finally

violations

(See Objection, Doc. 15.)

he

The Magistrate

Judge considered Plaintiff's Objection and vacated the previous
R&R,

giving

complaint.

Plaintiff

an

opportunity

to file

another

amended

(Order of November 22, 2017, Doc. 17, at 2-3.)

Plaintiff, however, never received notice of that Order or

the instruction to file another amended complaint.

The Order of

November 22nd was sent to an address provided by Plaintiff at the

Gwinnett County Detention Center C'GCDC"),^ but it was returned as
undeliverable.

(Doc. 18.)

Plaintiff had been transferred out of

that facility before the Order of November 22nd was delivered, and
he did not inform the Court of his new address after his transfer
out of GCDC.

^ Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on October 21, 2017, informing
the Court of his GCDC address.

(Doc. 16.)

Without notice of the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to file

an amended complaint.

As such, the Magistrate Judge entered a R&R

on February 5, 2018, that Plaintiff's case be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute.

(R&R, Doc. 19, at 1, 5-6.)

Plaintiff was mailed a copy of the R&R at GCDC, but it was again
returned as undeliverable.

(Doc. 20.)

Plaintiff claims that he

sent a letter on February 9th to the Clerk's Office requesting an

update on the status of his case.

While Plaintiff provided a

tracking number for that letter, the letter is not in the record
of the case.

For the purposes of this motion, the Court will give

Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt that he attempted to request a
status update.

On March 7, 2018, having heard no objections to the R&R, the
Court entered an Order adopting the R&R and dismissing Plaintiff's
case for failure to prosecute.

(Order of March 7, 2018, Doc. 21.)

Plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Order, and, in what had become
a predictable pattern, that mail was returned as undeliverable.

(Doc. 23.)

Just a few days later. Plaintiff filed a notice of

change of address informing the Court that he would be returning
to GCDC on March 30th.

(Doc. 24.)

This notice informed the Court

that Plaintiff had not received any of the Court's R&Rs or Orders
since he filed his Objection on October 25, 2017.

(Id.)

After

updating his location, the Clerk did not forward Plaintiff any of
the documents previously returned as undeliverable.

Thus, from early December 2017 until March 30, 2018, Plaintiff
was housed at another correctional facility than the one to which
the Clerk was sending his mail.

It was during this period that

all of the R&Rs and Orders relevant to Plaintiff's case were mailed

to him at the wrong address.

Finally, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk's Office on

July 13, 2018, requesting a status update on this case.2 According
to Plaintiff, he received a response on July 25th.^

Plaintiff then

filed this motion two months later requesting relief from judgment
for excusable neglect.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: '"On motion and upon
such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect."
Rule

60(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

^excusable

neglect'

is

'''[F]or purposes of

understood

to

encompass

situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline

is attributable to negligence."

Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container

Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Pioneer Inv.

2 The Clerk received the letter and retained it but did not docket it.

The

July 13th letter is attached to this Order as Exhibit A.
2 Typically, the Court sends a copy of the docket in response to requests for
status updates.

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P^ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394
(1993)).

"[W]hether a party's neglect of a deadline may be excused is
an

equitable

decision

turning

on

all

relevant

circumstances

surrounding the party's omission . . . includ[ing] the danger of
prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay,
including

whether it was

within the

reasonable control of the

movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Id. (internal

quotations and alterations omitted) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at

395).

Finally,

Rule

60(b) motions are left ''for

court's sound direction."

the

district

Green v. United States, 2015 WL 4944808,

at *3 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 19, 2015) (quoting Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh
Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014)).

Ill.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the Court's Order dismissing his
case

because

he

never

received

notice

Court's previous rulings in the case.

of

the

dismissal

or

the

He argues that his letters

demonstrate diligence in keeping the Court updated on any changes
in

his

location

and

that

the

multiple

transfers

between

correctional facilities "caused confusion in the service of [his]

mail."

(Pl.'s Rule 60(b) Mot., Doc. 25, at 3.)

It

is

irrefutable

that

Plaintiff

never

received

the

Order

granting him leave to amend his complaint, the R&R to dismiss his
case, or the Court's adoption Order.

(Docs. 18, 20, 23.)

While

Plaintiff did fail to formally update the Court of his location

after being transferred out of GCDC in December 2017, he did file
two notices of change of address each time he returned to GCDC.
Plaintiff also wrote a letter to the Clerk's Office on February 9,

2018, requesting a status update, and another letter on July 13,
2018.

Finally, in his March 19, 2018 notice of change of address.

Plaintiff informed the Court that he had not received any R&Rs or
Orders since October 2017.

It can therefore be said that Plaintiff

was reasonably diligent in remaining updated on his case.
Turning to the Pioneer factors described above, the Court
finds

no

immediately

apparent

reason

why

Defendants

would

be

prejudiced considering they have yet to be served in this case.
Next, the

length

of delay

by

Plaintiff

was

minor

because

he

requested a status update on February 9th, just four days after
the dismissal R&R was entered.

Also, Plaintiff filed a notice of

change of address on March 26th, just three weeks after the Court's
Order dismissing the case.
filed, is still timely
60(b)(1) motions.

This motion, while not immediately

under the one-year

limit set for

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Rule

Further, the Court

finds the reason for the delay. Plaintiff's failure to receive
notice due to multiple transfers, is not completely under

his

control.

Although

updating

the

Court

of

address

changes

is

Plaintiff's duty, transfers between correctional facilities is
outside his control.

Finally, Plaintiff's multiple letters sent

to the Court requesting status updates demonstrate he acted in
good faith in attempting to stay appraised of what was happening
in his case.

Simply put. Plaintiff did not have notice of the

Court's R&R and dismissal Order, despite reasonable attempts to

stay updated on his case status.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff is litigating this case

as a pro se prisoner.

While Plaintiff's unrepresented status does

not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules,^ it is relevant in

making

"'an

equitable

decision"

that

considers

all

the

circumstances of Plaintiff's neglect. See Cheney, 71 F.3d at 850.

Accordingly,

the

Court

finds,

in

its

sound

discretion,

that

Plaintiff's neglect is excusable, and he is entitled to relief
from the Order dismissing his case.

Plaintiff also seeks a stay in this action until he can return

to Autry State Prison where his case files are located.
the

Court

will

grant

Plaintiff

twenty-one

days

to

Instead,
amend

his

complaint and provide the November 22nd Order and his prior Amended
Complaint.

^ McNeil V. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
7

IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing. Plaintiff's motion for relief from

judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Because Plaintiff

demonstrated excusable neglect, his motion for relief from the
Court's dismissal Order is GRANTED.

is hereby VACATED.

The Order of March 7, 2018,

The Clerk is DIRECTED to REOPEN this case and

place it on the active docket.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a

Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date
of this Order. That amended complaint must comply with the Court's
instructions in the November 22nd Order.

Plaintiff's motion for a stay in the proceedings is DENIED.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of this
Order, the Court's November 22nd Order (doc. 17), and Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint (doc. 9), to Gwinnett County Detention Center,
2900 University Pkwy., Lawrenceville, GA 30043 and to Autry State
Prison, P.O. Box 648, Pelham, GA 31779.

ORDER

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia,

this

day

of

November, 2018.

J. RANOAL HALL,/GHIEF JUDGI
UNITIIET STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA