Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01353-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, 

et al,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1353-TLN-CSK

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default 

Judgement on July 10, 2024.1 (ECF No. 30 at 4.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests the 

1 Under the mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s pleadings are deemed filed when handed over 

to prison authorities for mailing to the court. See Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1058–59 

(9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not contain a proof of service

indicating when she handed her motion for default judgment to jail authorities for mailing to the 

Court. However, Plaintiff signed her motion for default judgment on July 10, 2024. (ECF No. 30 

at 4.) This Court finds Plaintiff filed her motion default judgment on the date it was signed. See 

Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1178 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that, in the absence of other 

evidence, courts generally deem a habeas petition filed on the date it was signed). Thus, the 

Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 30) is timely. See Local Rule 303(b) 

(“rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the 

Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.”); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(d) (when party must act within a specified time after being served by mail, three days are

added after the period would otherwise expire).

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 32 Filed 08/16/24 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

Court reconsider its June 25, 2024 Order, finding that Defendants showed good cause for their 

failure to waive service and that the Clerk of the Court should not enter default against them. (Id.

at 3.) This Court construes Plaintiff’s instant motion as a request for reconsideration of the 

Court’s June 25, 2024 Order. (ECF No. 30.) 

 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). Further, local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state 

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts 

or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4).

In the instant case, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion does not present any new or different 

facts or circumstances that would demonstrate good cause did not exist for Defendants failure to 

waive service. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 

30.) 

Date: August 15, 2024 

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 32 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 2