Diaz v. Spencer et al

Filing 19

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: plaintiff's letter/request (Docket No. 25) filed in Civil Action No. 12-12154-DPW and his letter/requests (Docket Nos. 15, 16, and 18) in Civil Action No. 13-10994-DPW (seeking to re-open these cases) are DENIED. (PSSA, 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JUAN DIAZ, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUIS S. SPENCER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------JUAN DIAZ, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUIS S. SPENCER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-12154-DPW

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-10994-DPW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
September 27, 2016
WOODLOCK, D.J.
This court dismissed the two above-captioned actions on
October 16, 2015 for failure of the plaintiff to serve process on
the defendants, where summonses had issued on August 29, 2013.
This court noted that plaintiff had made no requests for leave to
extend the time period for service of process, and, in fact, the
court had not received any communication from him in over two
years.
Now before this court are plaintiff's letter/request (Docket
No. 25) filed in Civil Action No. 12-12154-DPW and his
letter/requests (Docket Nos. 15, 16, and 18) filed in Civil
Action No. 13-10994-DPW in which he seeks to have these two
actions re-opened, because: (1) he had been transferred to
another prison and had not received any notice from the court

since 2013 about his case prior to the Order of Dismissal; (2) he
had been waiting to hear from the court about the continuation of
his cases because he received notice that, due to the government
shut-down in 2013, the court would not pursue his cases until
after the government shut-down had been resolved.

Thus,

plaintiff alleges that the delay in these cases was not his
fault; rather, he maintains that it was the court’s fault for
failing to get in touch him.
This court construes plaintiff’s letters as Motions to
Reopen and/or Motions for Reconsideration of the Order of
Dismissal.

As such, the court finds plaintiff’s motions to be

without merit.

First, the court records do not reflect any

reference to a stay of this case due to a government shut-down,
nor is there any Order for a Stay recorded on the docket in these
two cases.
Second, this court continued its operations notwithstanding
a government shut-down in other federal agencies.

Since

plaintiff’s two cases concerned state prison officials and
employees as well as medical care providers, this court is hardpressed to credit plaintiff’s statements in this regard.

While

he may have been misinformed by someone in this regard, he has
not shown sufficiently that the statement upon which he relies
generated from the court.
Third, the onus is on the plaintiff to keep apprised of his
cases.

See Ekeani v, Board of Educ. of Howard County, 2009 WL

2578985, *2 (D. Md. 2009) citing United States ex rel. McAllan v.
2

City of New York, 248 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
535 U.S. 929 (2002)(“parties have an obligation to monitor the
docket sheet and inform themselves of the entry of orders . . .
“).

Moreover, the onus is on the plaintiff to apprise this court

of any change of address.

District Court Local Rule 83.5.5

(h)(eff. January 1, 2015) provides:
Every party appearing pro se shall inform the clerk and
all parties in writing of any change of name, address,
telephone number, or e-mail address within 14 days of
the change. It is the responsibility of the pro se
party to notify the clerk and the parties of any
change. Any notice sent by the clerk or any party to a
pro se party shall be deemed delivered and properly
served if sent to the most recent address or e-mail
address provided by the pro se party.
Id.

Previously, Local Rule 83.5.2(e)(eff. September 1, 1990) set

forth similar requirements, providing:
Change of Address. Each attorney appearing and each
party appearing pro se is under a continuing duty to
notify the clerk of any change of address and telephone
number. Notice under this rule shall be filed in every
case. Any attorney or party appearing pro se who has
not filed an appearance or provided the clerk with his
current address in accordance with this rule shall not
be entitled to notice. Notice mailed to an attorney's
or party's last address of record shall constitute due
notice contestable only upon proof of a failure to mail
delivery.
Id.
In light of the above, the court finds that plaintiff's
failure to notify the court of his change of address as required,
and his failure to take any action for over two years, militates
against re-opening these cases.

The reopening of these cases

years after the alleged misconduct would be prejudicial to the
defendants.
3

Accordingly, plaintiff’s letter/request (Docket No. 25)
filed in Civil Action No. 12-12154-DPW and his letter/requests
(Docket Nos. 15, 16, and 18) in Civil Action No. 13-10994-DPW are
DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4