Hathaway v. Lincoln County Police et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to reconsider is GRANTED and this Court's order dismissing plaintiffs case (#27) is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall resend their discovery requests to plainti ff no later than June 1, 2018. Plaintiff shall respond no later than July 1, 2018. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all discovery in this case must be completed no later than September 14, 2018. Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than October 12, 2018. Oppositions briefs must be filed no later than November 9, 2018, and any reply brief may be filed no later than November 19, 2018.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/16/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RALPH DAVID HATHAWAY,

Plaintiff,
vs.
LINCOLN CO. POLICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16cv1761 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff, acting pro se, claims his constitutional rights were violated by defendant
police officers. As of August 2017, plaintiff was no longer being held at the same
facility, yet he had not updated his address with the Court. Plaintiff had not responded to
defendants’ discovery requests, and their attorneys’ efforts to contact plaintiff had failed.
Moreover, this Court’s May 30, 2017 mailing to plaintiff had been returned to the Court
as undeliverable. (#25.)
Plaintiff was required to “promptly notify the Clerk and all other parties to the
proceedings of any change in his or her address and telephone number,” E.D. Mo. L.R.
45-2.06. This Court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit in accordance with that Local Rule 452.06, which states
If any mail to a pro se plaintiff or petitioner is returned to the Court without
a forwarding address and the pro se plaintiff or petitioner does not notify
the Court of the change of address within thirty (30) days, the Court may,
without further notice, dismiss the action without prejudice.

Id. The order was filed on August 29, 2017.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dismissing his lawsuit
(#30). He alleges that he “sent out two letters to this court to the [Court’s mailing
address]” and that the “court from the same address sent out the order to Plaintiff’s exact
address listed on the letter to the clerk of the Southeastern Division and it was received
on September 15, 2017.” (#30 at 1.) He says he “has made the attempt to notify the
court of his change of address in an efficient and timely manner, with the restrictions and
interference caused by lack of counsel and transferring of locations within the federal
system.” (Id.) He obliquely refers to updates to plaintiff’s address that were sent from
Sangamon County Detention Facility in Springfield, Illinois on April 28 and from a
federal prison in Greenville, Illinois on July 5. (Id. at 2.) However, the last document the
Court received from plaintiff was a “Notice” received on February 24. That document
was sent from the Sangamon facility. The Court sent a docket text order regarding the
case management order on May 30, and that order was returned as undeliverable. (#25.)
At the time, the clerk looked for a new address for plaintiff in the offender database and
noted in the docket sheet that a new address could not be verified. (Id.) After the Court
dismissed the action due to plaintiff’s failure to update his address in accordance with the
Local Rule, that order was returned as undeliverable as well (#29). However, this time,
the Clerk was able to locate a new address for plaintiff in the offender database, and the
order was re-sent (#29) on or around September 11.
The Court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion for relief from an order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That Rule states
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party…from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,

2

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; …[or] (3) fraud...,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff states that he did advise the Court of his new address.
Although he does not offer any supporting details or evidence, the Court will grant
plaintiff relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and vacates its order dismissing plaintiff’s case.
Before the Court dismissed plaintiff’s case, however, defendants advised the Court
that plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant’s written discovery. It may be that
defendants did not have the proper address for plaintiff. Defendants are hereby ordered
to resend their discovery requests to plaintiff at FCI Greenville. Plaintiff shall respond to
those requests as provided below, and new deadlines for discovery and summary
judgment are also provided below.

3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is GRANTED
and this Court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s case (#27) is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall resend their discovery
requests to plaintiff no later than June 1, 2018. Plaintiff shall respond no later than July
1, 2018.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all discovery in this case must be completed no
later than September 14, 2018. Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later
than October 12, 2018. Oppositions briefs must be filed no later than November 9, 2018,
and any reply brief may be filed no later than November 19, 2018.

Dated this 16th day of May, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4