Raines v. Monroe et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING ORDER OF DISMISSAL; granting 21 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 22 Motion for Reconsideration; vacating 17 Order of Dismissal; reinstating 15 Initial Partial Filing Fee and Collection Order.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified. Copy of Local Rules sent to Pltff.(lcayce, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DALAWRENCE RAINES,
Plaintiff,
VS.
C. MONROE, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-69
§
§
§
§

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND VACATING ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pending are Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider the voluntary dismissal of his case.
(See D.E. 21, 22). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motions are granted and the
April 22, 2014 Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 17) is vacated.
I.

Jurisdiction.
The Court has federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II.

Procedural background.
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal

Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), and is currently confined at the McConnell Unit in
Beeville, Texas. On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed his original complaint challenging as
unconstitutional a prison disciplinary conviction. (See D.E. 1). He named the following
McConnell Unit officers and officials as defendants: (1) Warden C. Monroe; (2) Officer
F. Colver; (3) Officer N. Saenz; (4) Captain Rodriguez; and (5) J. Garcia, Grievance
Investigator. Id. at 3.

1/4

On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his complaint. (D.E. 10).
On April 21, 2014, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“i.f.p.”), paying the entire filing fee over time. (D.E. 15). On that same date, the Clerk’s
Office received a letter-motion from Plaintiff that stated:
To Whom It May Concern: My Name is Mr. Dalawrence
Raines, TDCJ #1499674. I am currently incarcerated at the
McConnell Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
I am writing to you in regards to I would like to dismiss
§ 1983.
(D.E. 16).
The Court construed Plaintiff’s letter-motion as a motion for voluntary dismissal
and on April 22, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and
vacated the i.f.p. collection order. (D.E. 17). Final judgment was not entered.
On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court alleging that he was
“having problems” because his property had been stolen by Sergeant Wasawkey, and that
such property included Step 1 and Step 2 grievances relevant to his lawsuit. (D.E. 18).
On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter-motion for reconsideration of the Order
dismissing his claims. (D.E. 21). Plaintiff related that he had not intended to dismiss his
lawsuit and instead, that he had wanted to name as an additional defendant the TDCJ
Director, William Stephens, for injunctive relief. Id.
On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second letter-motion for reconsideration. (D.E.
22). Plaintiff states therein: “. . . I do not want the Court to dismiss my lawsuit . . . .” He
continues with additional information about the challenged disciplinary hearing, and also

2/4

relates that he believes his life is in danger and that he intends to file a life in danger
complaint so that an Offender Protection Investigation (“OPI”) will be instigated.
III.

Discussion.
Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a plaintiff to

voluntarily dismiss an action or claims prior to service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

In this

case, Plaintiff has caused confusion by filing letters with the Court that purport to seek
relief of some kind. These letters have been construed as motions.
In his latest letter-motion, Plaintiff requests that the dismissal order be set aside
and that his case go forward.1 Because Plaintiff did not intend to dismiss his lawsuit, and
because no defendants were served and there is no delay or prejudice to any party, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s case should be reinstated. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for
reconsideration (D.E. 21, 22) are GRANTED, and the Order granting Plaintiff’s motion
to dismiss (D.E. 17) is VACATED. The Initial Partial Filing Fee and Collection Order
(D.E. 15) is REINSTATED.
DIRECTIVE TO PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff is advised that his current case concerns a
July 1, 2013 disciplinary hearing and his claims against six defendants. Plaintiff shall not
file letters with this Court, and he shall refrain from filing further pleadings until or after
a Spears hearing has been conducted and/or Defendants have been served. Pleadings will
1

Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the order granting his voluntary motion to dismiss.
There is no “motion to reconsider” in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Fifth Circuit
typically interprets motions to reconsider dispositive pretrial orders as analogus to Rule 60(b)
motions for relief from judgment or Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend the judgment
depending on whether the motion is filed within twenty-eight days of the order’s issuance. See
e.g. Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 865 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Bass v. Department of
Agriculture, 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000); Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir.
2000).
3/4

be labeled as “motions” or “notices,” and Plaintiff will not file discovery with the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send Plaintiff a copy of the local rules.

ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4/4