Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00124-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Unknown Party, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-124-PHX-RCB (DKD) 

ORDER

Pending in this closed case are Plaintiff’s “Motion For Consideration to Reopen Case”

(Doc. 11) and “Motion: For Transcripts of Complete Record” (Doc. 13). The Court will

deny both Motions.

I. Procedural Background

On January 21, 2010, Plaintiff John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3). On April

6, 2010, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) (Amended Complaint) was filed in

this case nunc pro tunc.

By Order filed April 27, 2010 (Doc. 6), the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, assessed a partial filing fee of $3.06, dismissed Defendant Rivas

from this action, and dismissed Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was given 30 days from the filing

date of the Order to file a Response to the Order that included either (1) the name of

Case 2:10-cv-00124-RCB--DKD Document 14 Filed 11/16/10 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

1

The two other cases which Plaintiff included in his Motion were Neuendorf v.

Arizona, CV 10-607-PHX-RCB (DKD), and Neuendorf v. Steinhillber, CV 10-724-PHXRCB (DKD). 

- 2 -

Defendant Unknown Members of the SAU (the Defendant in Count I) or (2) an explanation

of what Plaintiff had done to try to learn his or her name, a description of what discovery he

would undertake to learn his or her name, and the identity of at least one person who could

be served with discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter a judgment of dismissal

of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff if he failed to file a

Response within 30 days. 

When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s April 27, 2010 Order (Doc. 6), the

Clerk of Court entered a Judgment of dismissal of this action on June 11, 2010 (Doc. 8).

Then, on July 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 9), in which he asked for

“extensions & or the re[]opening and new directives” for this and two other cases.1

 By Order

filed September 16, 2010 (Doc. 12), the Court denied Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court”

(Doc. 9), which the Court construed as being brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and directed the Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiff’s lodged Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). This case was ordered to remain closed.

II. Motion for Reconsideration to Reopen Case

On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion For Consideration to Reopen Case”

(Doc. 11) in this closed case. In his Motion, Plaintiff requests that this Court reopen his

“case or cases if you will for the [s]ubmission [of] newly discover[ed] evidence and identity

of the defendant for the following reasons[:] [t]he protection of my civil rights, as they have

in fact been violated for excessive force.”

In the present case, where Plaintiff submitted his Motion after entry of judgment, the

only appropriate procedural devices are: (1) a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant

to Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or (2) a motion for relief from judgment

pursuant to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, Plaintiff did not serve his

Motion within the 28 days required by Rule 59(e). Accordingly, the Court will construe

Case 2:10-cv-00124-RCB--DKD Document 14 Filed 11/16/10 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 -

Plaintiff’s Motion as having been brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Here, after having considered the foregoing standards, and liberally reviewing the

circumstances of Plaintiff’s case, the Court’s previous Orders filed April 27, 2010 (Doc. 6)

and September 16, 2010 (Doc. 12), the record in this case, and Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court

declines to set aside the Judgment of dismissal entered on June 11, 2010 (Doc. 8) and reopen

this case. The Judgment of dismissal was entered in this action for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the Court’s April 27, 2010 Order. Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to so

comply. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

III. Motion for Transcripts of Complete Record

On October 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion: For Transcripts of Complete Record”

(Doc. 13), in which he requests that the Court send him a copy of all the cases he has filed

with this Court because his “paperwork has been destroyed from flooding and is no longer

legible.” Plaintiff alleges that his “cell was flooded from people throwing water in a bucket

under [his] door.” Plaintiff further alleges that his “files are ruined.”

Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied. This Court is not in a position to act as a copy

service for Plaintiff. Moreover, this case is closed and must remain closed.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion For Consideration to Reopen Case” (Doc. 11), which the

Court construes as being brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s “Motion: For Transcripts of Complete Record” (Doc. 13) is denied.

//

//

Case 2:10-cv-00124-RCB--DKD Document 14 Filed 11/16/10 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 -

(3) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00124-RCB--DKD Document 14 Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 4