Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Langley v. Well Path Medical

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 15, 2020

CHRISTOPHER J. LANGLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
WELL PATH MEDICAL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          TROY L. NUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff 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 Order.

         On 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.[1] 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.)

         Plaintiff 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.)

         On 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.

         II. Standard of Law

         The 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).

         Under 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).

         Additionally, 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).

         III. Analysis

         First, 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.)

         Alternatively, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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