Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEDY HOLMES STAFFING SERV., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 13-cv-00117-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff William J. Whitsitt’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to 

re-open this case, ECF No. 8. For the following reasons, that Motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff initiated this action in January 2013, alleging claims for age discrimination 

and retaliation against various defendants. Compl., ECF No. 1. The Court subsequently 

found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim for relief against several parties and 

ordered that Plaintiff complete and return to the United States Marshal’s Office, within 

thirty days, the USM-285 forms required to effect service. See Order, May 5, 2013, ECF 

No. 3 at 2. The Court also informed Plaintiff that failure to comply with its Order might 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See id. at 3. 

Plaintiff nonetheless failed to submit the required documents, and on June 14, 

2013, the magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF No. 4. The F&R contained notice to 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Id. at 1-2. On June 26, 

2013, that F&R was returned to the Court as undeliverable. This Court thereafter 

dismissed this action without prejudice, noting that no objections were filed despite 

Plaintiff having been properly served. See Order, ECF No. 5. That Order was also 

returned as undeliverable. 

Eventually, on September 6, 2013, the Court received a Notice of Change of 

Address from Plaintiff. ECF No. 7. A few days later, the Court re-served its August 6, 

2013, Order on Plaintiff, after which Plaintiff filed his instant motion to re-open. 

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment or any order where 

one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have 

been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, 

misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; 

(5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a 

reasonable time, and no later than one year, of the entry of the judgment or the order 

being challenged. Id. 

Rule 60(b) is “remedial in nature . . . and must be liberally applied.” TCI Group 

Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). “[W]here 

there has been no merits decision, appropriate exercise of district court discretion under 

Rule 60(b) requires that the finality interest should give way fairly readily, to further the 

competing interest in reaching the merits of a dispute.” Id. at 696 (emphasis in original). 

While “[n]either ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney 

provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) (1),” application of Rule 60(b)(1)'s excusable 

neglect standard is ultimately committed to the discretion of the district courts. 

Engleson v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.1992); see 

Kendrick v. Pina, 1:08-CV-1055-RCC, 2013 WL 2102685, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 

2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 03/28/14 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

In seeking to re-open his case, Plaintiff avers that he believes he filed a Notice of 

Change of Address with the Court on February 1, 2013, indicating that he was destitute 

and living in a homeless shelter. Mot., ECF No. 8 at 2. If Plaintiff did not actually do so, 

he further contends it was due to inadvertence and his severe economic hardship, which 

caused him to move multiple times. Id. at 2-4. 

 Regardless, it is the responsibility of each party to keep the court apprised of his 

or her address of record at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), each pro se party is 

under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address 

or telephone number of the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at 

the prior address of the pro se party shall be considered fully effective. Therefore, the 

Court’s service of the F&R, ECF No. 4, and service of the Order adopting the F&R, ECF 

No. 5, was proper. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s prior homelessness and 

representations of severe economic hardship, the Court now re-opens this case. There 

has been no decision on the merits in this matter, and, under the circumstances, the 

interest in reaching the merits outweighs any interest in the finality of the judgment. 

However, Plaintiff is admonished that should he fail to notify the Clerk of Court and all 

other parties of any future changes of address or fail to comply with this and any 

subsequent Court orders, the Court will dismiss this action and Plaintiff will be unable to 

re-open the matter a second time. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to RE-OPEN this matter; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send Plaintiff an 

instruction sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, five (5) USM-285 

forms, one (1) summons form, and an endorsed copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, 

filed January 22, 2013; 

4. Within thirty (30) days after this order is served, Plaintiff shall submit to the 

United States Marshal properly completed USM-285 forms, a properly completed 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 03/28/14 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

summons form, and the number of copies of the endorsed Complaint and of this Order 

required by the United States Marshal; the required documents shall be submitted 

directly to the United States Marshal either by personal delivery or by mail to: United 

States Marshals Service, 501 I Street, Suite 5600, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-

2030); 

5. Within ten (10) days after submitting the required materials to the United 

States Marshals Service, Plaintiff shall file with this Court a declaration stating the date 

on which he submitted the required documents to the United States Marshal. Failure to 

file the declaration in a timely manner may result in an order imposing appropriate 

sanctions, including the dismissal of this action; 

6. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the necessary materials from Plaintiff, the 

United States Marshal is directed to serve process on Defendant without prepayment of 

costs; 

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the United 

States Marshal; and 

8. Failure to keep the Court apprised of Plaintiff’s address of record at all times or 

failure to comply with this Order will result in this action being dismissed and Plaintiff will 

be unable to re-open the matter a second time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 28, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 03/28/14 Page 4 of 4