UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 23, 2010
SHAWN WOODALL, CDCR #F-91270, PLAINTIFF,
U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
Shawn Woodall ("Plaintiff"), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility, initially filed this action on January 31, 2001. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous because it was duplicative of a civil rights action he was already litigating in Woodall v. Imperial County Sheriff, et al. S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 00-2584 JM (LSP). See Apr. 16, 2001 Order at 3. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the file. Id. The Clerk entered judgment and the dismissal was "without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of the same claims presented herein in Civil Case Number 00cv2584 JM (LSP)." See Clerk's Judgment, Doc. No. 3, at 1.
On April 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Motion and Motion to Reopen Case Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the Alternative Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 60(b)." [Doc. No. 6].
Plaintiff contends that he never received a copy of the Court's Order of dismissal but he understands that it has constituted a "strike" against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Pl.'s Mot. at 6-7. As a result, he has been unable to proceed in forma pauperis in other cases. Thus, he seeks an Order from this Court allowing him to re-open this case and file an Amended Complaint to correct whatever problems the Court addressed in the dismissal Order dated April 17, 2001. Id.
As stated above, Plaintiff's original Complaint was dismissed because it was duplicative of another case he had already filed. It would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint in this action because he had already filed the same claims in Woodall v. Imperial County Sheriff, et al. S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 00-2584 JM (LSP). Moreover, there is nothing in the Court's docket to indicate that Plaintiff ever inquired into the status this matter until this Motion was filed nine years after the Court dismissed his case. A motion brought pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60 requires that such a motion "must be made within a reasonable time," and for reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, "no more than a year after the entry of judgment or order or date of the proceeding." FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff's current Motion far exceeds the time permitted by Rule 60. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen the Case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.