Benns v. Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparation

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/01/2011. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

ELIZABETH BENNS,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

vs.

UTAH OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIM
REPARATION,

Case No. 2:10-CV-1242 TS

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.1 Plaintiff asks
the Court to vacate its prior order closing this case because Plaintiff failed to respond to an order
to show cause.2
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and

1

Docket No. 12.

2

Docket No. 11.
1

the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause on August 17, 2011.
Plaintiff failed to respond, and her case was dismissed on September 13, 2011. Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Reconsideration on October 5, 2011.
Plaintiff supports her request with evidence offered to prove that she was unemployed,
homeless, pursuing three law suits without the assistance of counsel, and trying to attend school
at the University of Utah all during the time period in which she was asked by this Court to show
cause why her case should not be dismissed.
II. DISCUSSION
Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. (6)(b)(1), a court is authorized to “relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertance, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a request to vacate its dismissal order because of
excusable neglect.
“The determination of whether neglect is excusable is at bottom an equitable one, taking
account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. Relevant factors include
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. [F]ault in the delay remains a
very important factor—perhaps the most important single factor—in determining whether neglect
is excusable.”3

Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856-57 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations marks and
citations omitted).
3

2

Plaintiff has indicated that she was homeless, unemployed, without means, and under
immense stress during the period in which she was required to respond to the Court’s order to
show cause. The Court also received a letter from a psychologist indicating that, as a result of
her circumstances, Plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Court is sympathetic
to Plaintiff’s plight, but cannot find that Plaintiff’s neglect was excusable based on the mere fact
that her circumstances were hard. If her difficult circumstances, which are seemingly beyond her
control, caused her to neglect her case, then the Court might be able to find that the delay was not
her fault. But without some particularized showing of how her situation made it impracticable
for her to complete the tasks necessary to her litigation, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff’s
circumstances caused her failure to respond to the order to show cause. Many litigants are
stressed out, prey to emotional trauma, and without means. To have a final judgment set aside,
Plaintiff must show that her stressors put her into a state that rendered her uniquely unable to
proceed, despite her knowledge that action was required. Otherwise, the Court must hold that the
delay, although understandable in light of the circumstances, was Plaintiff’s fault and not
excusable. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 12) is DENIED.
DATED November 1, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3