Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01405-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT C. JANOIKO, 1:06-cv-01405-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

vs. REOPEN CASE 

(Doc. 39.)

SCOTT COX, 

Defendant.

 _____________________________/

I. BACKGROUND

Robert C. Janoiko (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 22, 2006, against defendant Scott

Cox ("Defendant"). (Doc. 1.) The parties to this action consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction,

and on April 9, 2009, this case was assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all further

proceedings, including trial and final judgment. (Doc. 35.) The action was dismissed by the

undersigned on January 29, 2010, based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order of

December 10, 2009 and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 40.) On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 43.)

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

1

Case 1:06-cv-01405-GSA Document 44 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 3
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

(en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party show that

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.” Local Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

II. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff brings a motion for the court to reopen this action, arguing that he was unable to

comply with the court's order of December 10, 2009 because he did not receive a copy of the order. 

Plaintiff also contends that he did not receive a copy of Defendant's motion for summary judgment

and was therefore unable to defend his case.

A review of the court's docket shows that on September 22, 2006, when Plaintiff filed this

action, he was incarcerated at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility ("BWDF") in Visalia, California. 

(Doc. 1.) The court served Plaintiff with court documents at BWDF between September 22, 2006

and March 12, 2007. On March 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating

that he was no longer in jail and was residing at a street address in Porterville, California. (Doc. 21.) 

The court changed Plaintiff's address of record and began serving him at the Porterville address. 

There is no indication on the court's record between March 12, 2007 and February 22, 2010 that

Plaintiff changed addresses or was not receiving his mail at the Porterville address. 

On September 22, 2009, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, indicating on the

proof of service that Plaintiff was served at the Porterville address. (Doc. 36.) Plaintiff failed to file

a response to the motion for summary judgment within the twenty-one-day time period allowed

under Local Rule 230(l). On December 10, 2009, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file

a response to the motion for summary judgment within thirty days. (Doc. 39.) The court's order

forewarned Plaintiff that "[I]f Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed,

with prejudice, for failure to obey the Court's order and failure to prosecute." Id. The thirty-day time

period passed, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order. On January 29, 2010, the court

dismissed this action for failure to obey the court's order and failure to prosecute, and judgment was

entered. (Docs. 40, 41.) Plaintiff was served with a copy of the dismissal order and the judgment at

his Porterville address. On February 22, 2010, the dismissal order and judgment were returned by

2

Case 1:06-cv-01405-GSA Document 44 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 3
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

the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. On March 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of

change of address, dated March 6, 2009, informing the court of his "new" mailing address at Wasco

State Prison. (Doc. 42.)

Local Rules 182 & 183

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the

court apprised of his or her current address at all times. If a party moves and fails to notify the court

of any change in his address, service at the party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).

Plaintiff argues that he did not receive a copy of the court's order requiring him to respond to the

motion for summary judgment. The court's record shows that a copy of the order was served on

Plaintiff at his address of record on December 10, 2009. Therefore, under Rule 182(f), the court's

service of the order was fully effective. Plaintiff has provided no evidence, and there is no evidence

on the court's record, that service upon Plaintiff by the court or by Defendant in this action was

improper, or that any other grounds exist for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing this

action.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause or any new or

different facts or circumstances to warrant reconsideration by the court of its order dismissing this

action. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reopen this case is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-01405-GSA Document 44 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 3