Edwards v. Shakiba
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to reopen a civil rights case that had been dismissed without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to respond to a motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion as untimely under Rule 60(b) but noted the plaintiff could file a new lawsuit.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Reopen Case Denied“For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the one-year time limit for Rule 60(b) motions based on mistake or excusable neglect. The judgment was entered on December 21, 2018, and the motion was filed on July 17, 2020, which is approximately 19 months later. The plaintiff provided no explanation for the delay or for failing to litigate the case previously. The court also correctly noted that because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiff is not barred from filing a new action, making relief from judgment unnecessary to pursue the claims. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the motion as one for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) and applies the strict time limits of Rule 60(c)(1). The court's reasoning that the motion is untimely is supported by the dates provided in the record. The court also appropriately points out the alternative remedy of filing a new suit, which is available because the prior dismissal was without prejudice. There is a minor clerical error in the conclusion where it says 'DENIES Defendants’ motion' instead of 'Plaintiff’s motion,' but the operative order at the beginning and the reasoning clearly indicate the Plaintiff's motion is being denied.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN EDWARDS, Case No. 18cv179-MMA (LL)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION TO REOPEN CASE 14 [Doc. No. 28] 15 P. SHAKIBA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Allen Edwards, a California inmate proceeding pro se, instituted this civil 19 rights action against officials at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility for violation of his 20 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s 21 claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 14. The 22 Court denied Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim but granted 23 Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 18. 24 The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in order to sufficiently 25 allege his Fourteenth Amendment claim. In doing so, the Court admonished Plaintiff that 26 an amended complaint, if any, “must be complete in itself without reference to the 27 original complaint,” and “[a]ny claims not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be 28 considered waived.” Id. at 7 (citing S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 1 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). 2 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging only a Fourteenth Amendment claim 3 against Defendants; Plaintiff did not re-allege his Eighth Amendment claim. See Doc. 4 No. 19. Defendants moved to dismiss this action in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiff 5 waived his Eighth Amendment claim and failed to state a plausible Fourteenth 6 Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and the Court 7 granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed this action without prejudice. See Doc. No. 8 24. The Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly on December 21, 2018. See Doc. 9 No. 25. 10 Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case, stating only that he has cured the 11 deficiencies in his previous pleadings. See Doc. No. 28. Plaintiff has attached a 12 proposed second amended complaint to his motion. See id. For the reasons set forth 13 below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the Court must construe the 16 pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los 17 Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the Court 18 construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for relief from the previously entered judgment. 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) grants district courts discretion to relieve a 20 party from a judgment upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or 21 excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have 22 been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the 23 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying 24 relief. “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for 25 reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or 26 the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 27 Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to relief from judgment in this case. Plaintiff 28 provides no explanation for why he failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 1 || seek reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order, or otherwise litigate this action. 2 ||Meanwhile, it has been more than a year and a half since entry of judgment. 3 || Accordingly, even if Plaintiff attempted to demonstrate mistake or excusable neglect — 4 || which he does not do — his motion would be untimely. The Court notes further that it 5 || dismissed this action without prejudice. As such, although Plaintiff is not entitled to 6 relief from the judgment in this case, he may file a new lawsuit in order to pursue his 7 || claims. 8 CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATE: July 17, 2020 uk Te i Ls 12 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELL United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3