Brown v. Bishop et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Brown's letter, construed as 9 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; (2) Court's 5 Order of Dismissal & 6 Judgment, entered 6/24/2011 are VACATED; (3) this matter is RETURNED to Court's active docket; (4) Brown's 3 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 08/08/2011.(RJD)cc: COR Modified text on 8/8/2011 (RJD).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
TYRIS A. BROWN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
V.
RON BISHOP, et al.,
Defendants.
**
**
No. 5:11-CV-00167-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
**
**
**
Plaintiff Tyris A. Brown has filed a letter, [Record No. 9],
seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of this action and the
reinstatement of his civil rights Complaint.
Broadly construed,
Brown’s letter constitutes a motion seeking relief from judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
For the reasons set
forth below, Brown’s motion will be granted.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2011, Brown filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights Complaint in this proceeding against various employees of
the
Fayette
Kentucky.
FCDC.
County
Detention
[Record No. 2].
Center
(“FCDC”)
in
Lexington,
At that time, Brown was confined in the
On June 13, 2011, the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of
the Court’s “Privacy Rules and Redaction Policy” (“PRRP”) to Brown
at the FCDC.
See Docket Entry, 6/13/11.
On June 17, 2011, the
postal service returned that mailing as “Undeliverable,” the FCDC
having stamped in red ink “Return to Sender Inmate Released from
FCDC” on the envelope.
[Record No. 4].
On June 23, 2011, the Court dismissed this proceeding without
prejudice, noting in the Order that because Brown had not provided
a current address, it had no means of contacting him.
[Record No.
5 & 6].
On July 18, 2011, Brown provided the Court with his new
address.
[Record No. 8].
On July 25, 2011, the Clerk of the Court
mailed copies of the Order of Dismissal and Judgment to Brown at
his new address.
Brown now asks the Court to reconsider the
dismissal and reinstate his § 1983 Complaint.
He contends that he
should have been given additional time in which to notify the Court
of his new address, noting that under the Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure, a party has sixty days in which to notify a court of a
change of address.
DISCUSSION
Brown’s Complaint will be reinstated. A court may relieve a
party from a final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) due to
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
While the exact date of Brown’s release or transfer from the
FCDC is unknown, it is undisputed that he had left the FCDC by June
14, 2011, the date on which the FCDC stamped “Return to Sender
Inmate Released from FCDC” on the envelope in which the PRRP had
been mailed. While Brown waited until July 18, 2011 to notify this
Court of his new address, this is not an unreasonable amount of
time. Section 5.2(d) of this Court’s Local Rules does not identify
a time limit for a party to notify the Court or opposing parties of
2
a change address.
Moreover, there has been no prejudice to the
defendants or delay in the proceedings in this case.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Brown’s letter, construed as a motion for reconsideration
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), [Record No. 9], is
GRANTED;
(2) This Court’s Order of Dismissal [Record No. 5] and
Judgment [Record No. 6], entered on June 24, 2011 are hereby
VACATED;
(3) This matter shall be, and hereby is, returned to this
Court’s active docket; and
(4) Brown’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [Record No.
3], is GRANTED.
This the 8th day of August, 2011.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?