Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jimenes v. Boyd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 21, 2008

ABRAHAM GONZALEZ JIMENES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
K. BOYD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

The Court has received a letter from Plaintiff dated July 1, 2008. In the letter, Plaintiff states that he was unable to attend the pretrial conference on May 9, 2008, because he was not allowed to enter the courthouse due to the fact that he did not have identification or papers proving he had a court date. Plaintiff explains that he has been incarcerated since June 12, 2008, and wishes to know what the status of his case is. Plaintiff states that he does not want his case to be dismissed. The Court construes Plaintiff's letter as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and denies the motion.

At a hearing on March 12, 2008, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration detailing the facts supporting his claims in response to Defendants' Heck v. Humphrey motion. The Court ordered that Plaintiff file the declaration on or before April 23, 2008. The Court also continued the pretrial conference to May 9, 2008. Plaintiff did not file his declaration and did not appear at the pretrial conference on May 9, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, the Court issued an order to show cause ("OSC") why the case should not be dismissed, which was mailed to Plaintiff at 1360 Callejon Palacios # 68, Chula Vista, CA 91910. This address was the most recent address provided by Plaintiff to the Court. (See Minute Entry of 11/27/07 -- Docket # 119.) In the OSC, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file a written response to the OSC in addition to the previously ordered declaration in response to the Heck motion on or before June 9, 2008. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply, the case would be dismissed.

Plaintiff did not file a response to the OSC or the declaration in response to the Heck motion by June 9, 2008. Therefore, in an order filed on June 13, 2008, the Court dismissed the case. Judgment was entered that same day.

Plaintiff may have been prevented by court security from entering the court building on May 9, 2008 because he did not have identification or papers showing that he had a court date. However, Plaintiff did not contact Chambers that day or anytime thereafter to notify the Court that he was prevented from entering the courthouse and to request a continuance of the pretrial conference. Between May 9, 2008 and June 13, 2008, Plaintiff did not contact Chambers once to inquire about his case or request new dates. Plaintiff also failed to file the declaration that was ordered on March 12, 2008.

Plaintiff did not file any response to the OSC, which was mailed to him at his last known address. Plaintiff does not state whether he received the OSC or not. Plaintiff indicates that he has been incarcerated since June 12, 2008. However, the OSC was mailed to Plaintiff in May. If Plaintiff was no longer at the address listed on the docket, it was his responsibility to notify the Court of his change of address.

Plaintiff has not established excusable neglect or any other grounds for granting him relief from the judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080721

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.