UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 16, 2012
LATANYA CRAMER, PLAINTIFF,
S. DICKENSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO REOPEN AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT SECOND MOTION TO REOPEN (Docs. 56, 57, 59)
Latanya Cramer ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on March 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) On April 5, 2012, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss this action, within thirty days. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff did not respond. On May 21, 2012, findings and recommendations were issued, recommending that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order of April 5, 2012, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff did not respond. On August 3, 2012, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed this action with prejudice. (Doc. 54.) Judgment was entered on August 3, 2012. (Doc. 55.)
On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to reopen this case (which includes a "declaration of mailing") and a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Court's orders. (Doc. 56, 57.) On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed another motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 59.)
Although not styled as such, it is apparent that Plaintiff's motions are in substance Rule 59(e) motions to alter/amend a judgment. So construing the motions, the Court will grant relief. As indicated above, this case was dismissed due to the apparent failure of Plaintiff obey a court order and to prosecute this case. However, Plaintiff's motion indicates that she wishes to prosecute this matter and that she attempted to respond to the Court's orders by mailing responses in June 2012. That is, it appears that Plaintiff was attempting to prosecute this case and obey court orders. Under these circumstances, it is inappropriate to maintain the judgment in this case. Further, in addition to reopening this matter, the Court will grant Plaintiff additional time in which to file a response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss.*fn1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 56), which the Court construes as a Rule 59(e) motion, is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's second motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED as moot;
2. The August 3, 2012, judgment in this case is VACATED;
3. The clerk shall REOPEN this case;
4. The clerk shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this order and also with copies of Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 40) and Defendants' request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 41);
5. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 40) and request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 41);
6. Defendants shall have ten (10) days from service of Plaintiff's opposition in which to file a reply; and
7. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including issuance of a Findings and Recommendation on Defendants' motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE