IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 6, 2010
AMOS RYLES, PLAINTIFF,
SPEERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
Plaintiff commenced this action on July 14, 2008. On July 22, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff to submit the required trust account statement for consideration of his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal. On August 19, 2008, plaintiff requested an extension of time to comply with the court's order, which the court granted on October 23, 2008. The court warned plaintiff again that his failure to comply with the court's order would result in dismissal. On November 19, 2008, plaintiff requested a second extension of time to comply with the court's order, which the court granted on December 3, 2008, again with a warning that this action would be dismissed if plaintiff failed to comply the court's order. Plaintiff failed to submit the required trust account statement. Accordingly, on February 13, 2009, the court dismissed this action and the judgment was entered.
On May 21, 2009, plaintiff sought relief from judgment. On June 10, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). The court noted that plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with this court's orders, and has also failed to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. The court also noted it was giving plaintiff one final opportunity to submit his certified trust account statement.
Plaintiff failed to submit his certified trust account statement or otherwise respond to the court's June 10, 2009 order. Accordingly, the court again dismissed this action on August 4, 2009 and judgment was duly entered a second time.
On November 18, 2009, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of this court's order, stating that he did not receive the court's June 10, 2009 order because he was not in custody at the time. Plaintiff fails to state sufficient grounds for relief, as it is his responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.