Benns v. Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparation
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 15 Motion to Appeal Dismissing Case. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 04/26/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ELIZABETH BENNS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED 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 to Appeal Dismissing Case.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, alleging that she was unable to comply with the
Order to Show Cause because she was “homeless, unemployed, without means, and under
immense stress,” and suffering from post traumatic stress disorder during the period in which she
was required to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.3
In its Order on the Motion, the Court stated that it was
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.4
Plaintiff has now filed a renewed motion to reconsider in which she has attempted to
remedy this flaw.
II. DISCUSSION
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), a court is authorized to “relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertance, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
Docket No. 13, at 3.
3
Id.
4
2
The Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion, as it did previously, 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.5
In this renewed Motion, Plaintiff states that she was hospitalized the first week of August
2011 due to chronic depression, anxiety, ADHD, and PTSD, and that, for the same reasons, she
was rendered unable to complete the tasks required during the critical period.
The Court would note that its Order to Show Cause issued August 17, and Plaintiff’s case
was not dismissed until September 13. The Court appreciates that Plaintiff may have been in a
weakened state of mental health after her release from the hospital. However, the Court simply
cannot accept that these obstacles made Plaintiff completely unable, during the entire period
between August 17 and September 13, to write a few lines about her intentions to proceed in this
matter and see them delivered to the Court. Where what was required of Plaintiff was so
minimal, her burden for proving that she was unable to perform the task is quite high, and she
has not met it here. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Reconsider.
Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856-57 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations marks and
citations omitted).
5
3
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appeal Dismissing Case (Docket No. 15) is
DENIED.
DATED April 26, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
4
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?