United States District Court, E.D. California
CHRISTOPHER J. LANGLEY, Plaintiff,
WELL PATH MEDICAL, et al., Defendants.
L. NUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Christopher
J. Langley's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 17), in which Plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of the Order adopting the Findings and
Recommendations to dismiss the action for failure to
prosecute and Judgment (ECF Nos. 11-13). For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Factual and Procedural Background
initiated this action on May 28, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On June
17, 2019, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to file a
completed application to proceed in forma pauperis
within 30 days in order to resolve the fee status for this
case. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to
resolve the fee status may result in the dismissal of his
action pursuant to Local Rule 110 for failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with court rules and orders.
(Id.) The June 17, 2019, Order was returned as
“undeliverable, ” due to Plaintiff's failure
to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Plaintiff
subsequently failed to comply with the magistrate judge's
August 26, 2019, as a result of Plaintiff's failure to
comply with the Order to resolve his fee status, the
magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations
recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's action for failure
to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and
orders. (ECF No. 11.) The Findings and Recommendations was
also returned as “undeliverable, ” due to
Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of his
current address. On October 1, 2019, after the time to file
objections to the Findings and Recommendations had expired,
the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full
and closed the case. (ECF Nos. 12-13.)
filed a Notice of Change of Address on October 3, 2019 (ECF
No. 14), and a Motion for an Extension of Time to file
objections to the Findings and Recommendations on October 9,
2019, on the basis that his mailbox keys were lost and he had
to attend to funeral arrangements in August 2019 for his
deceased aunt (ECF No. 15). The magistrate judge denied
Plaintiff's request for an extension of time as moot.
(ECF No. 16.)
October 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration, on the basis that he did not receive prior
Court filings because he lost his mailbox keys and suffered
the death of his aunt. (ECF No. 17.) The Court addresses and
DENIES Plaintiff's motion for the reasons stated herein.
Standard of Law
Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Rule 59(e)
applies to a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment.
See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th
Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment);
see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59
(9th Cir. 1995). Under this rule, “A motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after
the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Rule 60(a), the Court may grant reconsideration of final
judgments and any order based on clerical mistakes. Under
Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve Plaintiff from final
judgment for any of the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for
reconsideration to show the “new or different facts or
circumstances  claimed to exist which did not exist or were
not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist
for the motion; and [explain] why the facts or circumstances
were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D.
Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4).
to the extent Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is
brought pursuant to Rule 59(e), it is untimely. Here, the
Court entered judgment on October 1, 2019. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff did not file his Motion for Reconsideration until
October 24, 2019, nearly a month after the Court dismissed
this action. (ECF No. 17.)
if Plaintiff's motion is brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it lacks merit. In
his one-page motion, Plaintiff appears to argue he did not
timely object to the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No.
11) because he never received them in the mail due to
previously losing his mail keys and therefore being unable to
access the contents of his ...