Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01239/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01239-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 04cv1239 BTM(WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM GONZALEZ JIMENES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04cv1239 BTM(WMc)

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b)

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT

vs.

K. BOYD, et al.,

Defendants.

The Court has received a letter from Plaintiff dated July 1, 2008. In the letter, Plaintiff

states that he was unable to attend the pretrial conference on May 9, 2008, because he was

not allowed to enter the courthouse due to the fact that he did not have identification or

papers proving he had a court date. Plaintiff explains that he has been incarcerated since

June 12, 2008, and wishes to know what the status of his case is. Plaintiff states that he

does not want his case to be dismissed. The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion

for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and denies the motion.

At a hearing on March 12, 2008, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration

detailing the facts supporting his claims in response to Defendants’ Heck v. Humphrey

motion. The Court ordered that Plaintiff file the declaration on or before April 23, 2008. The

Court also continued the pretrial conference to May 9, 2008. Plaintiff did not file his

declaration and did not appear at the pretrial conference on May 9, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why the case

Case 3:04-cv-01239-BTM-WMC Document 131 Filed 07/21/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 04cv1239 BTM(WMc)

should not be dismissed, which was mailed to Plaintiff at 1360 Callejon Palacios # 68, Chula

Vista, CA 91910. This address was the most recent address provided by Plaintiff to the

Court. (See Minute Entry of 11/27/07 – Docket # 119.) In the OSC, the Court ordered that

Plaintiff file a written response to the OSC in addition to the previously ordered declaration

in response to the Heck motion on or before June 9, 2008. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that

if he failed to comply, the case would be dismissed.

Plaintiff did not file a response to the OSC or the declaration in response to the Heck

motion by June 9, 2008. Therefore, in an order filed on June 13, 2008, the Court dismissed

the case. Judgment was entered that same day.

Plaintiff may have been prevented by court security from entering the court building

on May 9, 2008 because he did not have identification or papers showing that he had a court

date. However, Plaintiff did not contact Chambers that day or anytime thereafter to notify the

Court that he was prevented from entering the courthouse and to request a continuance of

the pretrial conference. Between May 9, 2008 and June 13, 2008, Plaintiff did not contact

Chambers once to inquire about his case or request new dates. Plaintiff also failed to file the

declaration that was ordered on March 12, 2008.

Plaintiff did not file any response to the OSC, which was mailed to him at his last

known address. Plaintiff does not state whether he received the OSC or not. Plaintiff

indicates that he has been incarcerated since June 12, 2008. However, the OSC was mailed

to Plaintiff in May. If Plaintiff was no longer at the address listed on the docket, it was his

responsibility to notify the Court of his change of address.

Plaintiff has not established excusable neglect or any other grounds for granting him

relief from the judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01239-BTM-WMC Document 131 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 2