Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05343/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05343-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAINER, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

D. CHAPMAN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-5343 OWW/DLB P

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCUIT

REMAND AND DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO RE-SERVE

PLAINTIFF WITH MAY 22, 2006

ORDER 

By Order filed on May 22, 2006 (May 22 Order), United States

Magistrate Judge Dennis Beck dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with

leave to amend. Plaintiff was ordered to file an Amended

Complaint within 30 days of service of the May 22 Order. The May

22 Order was served on Plaintiff at the address listed on his

Notice of Change of Address filed on July 20, 2005:

William Rainer B-93196 D5-245

44750 60 Street West th

Lancaster, California 93536

This is the address for the California State Prison - Los Angeles

County.

Case 1:04-cv-05343-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

The May 22 Order was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. 

On August 18, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that the action be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the May 22 Order as well as for the

reasons dismissing the Complaint set forth in the May 22 Order.

No objections by Plaintiff were shown on the docket. By

Order filed on September 18, 2006, the recommendation was adopted

and the action dismissed for failure to comply with the May 22

Order and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Judgment for Defendants was entered on September 18,

2006. 

Plaintiff timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth

Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the action for further

proceedings, holding in pertinent part:

The district court abused its discretion when

it dismissed RAINER’s action for failure to

timely file an amended complaint without

considering Rainer’s objections to the

magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation ... Ranier contends that his

objections were timely under the ‘prison

mailbox rule.’ See Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d

1220, 1223 (9 Cir.2001)(rule set forth in th

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988),

applies even where a prisoner’s petition is

never filed by the court). Moreover, Rainer

attached documents such as prison mail logs

to his opening brief. We vacate and remand

to give the district court an opportunity to

consider these contentions and documents ....

Further investigation by the Clerk’s Office for the United

States District Court, Eastern District of California,

establishes that Plaintiff’s objections to the August 18, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-05343-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 6
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

3

recommendation were received by the Clerk’s Office on September

18, 2006. For reasons not apparent in the record, the objections

were not scanned and docketed. The objections were never seen by

the District Judge. The Court was not aware of the objections at

the time the action was dismissed.

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s remand, Plaintiff’s

objections to the findings and recommendation are considered and

de novo review is conducted.

Plaintiff asserts that he did not timely comply with the May

22 Order because he was transferred from the California State

Prison - Los Angeles County to the California Correctional in

Tehachapi, California on April 14, 2006. Plaintiff acknowledges

that he never filed a Notice of Change of Address with the Court

as required by Rule 83-183(b), Local Rules of Practice, and the

First Informational Order filed on May 17, 2004. The First

Informational Order specifically states:

10. A pro se plaintiff has an affirmative

duty to keep the court and opposing parties

apprised of his or her address. If a

plaintiff moves and fails to file a notice of

change of address, service of court orders at

plaintiff’s prior address shall constitute

effective notice. See Local Rule 83-182(d)

[now Local Rule 83-182(f)]. If mail directed

to plaintiff is returned by the U.S. Postal

Service as undeliverable, the court will not

attempt to re-mail it. If the address is not

updated within sixth days of the mail being

returned, the action will be dismissed for

failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 83-

183(b).

Nonetheless, Plaintiff contends that his failure to comply

with the Local Rules and the First Informational Order should be

Case 1:04-cv-05343-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 Plaintiff further asserts that the prison officials failed 1

to forward to him the “order of the 12 day of June 2006.” No th

orders or any other court document were filed in this case in June

2006. An order was filed on June 6, 2006 in Rainer v. Calderon,

No. CV-F-04-5545 LJO/DLB. That order was served by mail on

Plaintiff at the Lancaster address and not returned to the Court.

Attached to Plaintiff’s brief filed in the Ninth Circuit is a copy

of an envelope from this Court postmarked June 6, 2006. On the

envelope is a Santa Clarita postmark of June 13, 2006 with the

address:

CCI

P.O. Box 1031

End of Highway 202

Tehachapi, CA 93561

It is inferrable from this exhibit that the June 6, 2006 Order

issued in No. CV-F-04-5545 was in fact forwarded by the Lancaster

facility to the Tehachapi facility. 

4

excused because prison officials at California State Prison - Los

Angeles County failed to forward the May 22 Order to him.1

Plaintiff’s assertion is substantiated by the prison mail

logs attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s Ninth Circuit brief. 

These mail logs, apparently maintained by CCI Tehachapi, do not

show receipt of mail by Plaintiff on or after May 22, 2006.

15 CCR § 3147(a)(8) provides:

Forwarding Mail. Mail received for an inmate

who has been transferred from the facility

where the mail is received will be

immediately forwarded to the facility,

administrative office or agency to whom the

inmate’s custody has been relinquished,

except as otherwise stated in this section.

(A) Temporary Absence. Mail will 

be held for an inmate who is temporarily away

from the facility when the inmate’s return is

anticipated within one week.

(B) Address Unknown. Mail 

addressed to an inmate who has been

Case 1:04-cv-05343-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

transferred or released, will not be returned

to the sender as ‘addressee unknown’ unless

the individual has been discharged from

department jurisdiction.

(C) Means of Forwarding. First 

class mail will be forwarded directly via the

U.S. Postal Service ....

(D) Length of Forwarding ... First 

class mail will continue to be forwarded as

long as the addressee remains under the

jurisdiction of the department, or their

address is known or can be determined.

(E) Change of Address. Change of

address notice cards will be issued upon

request to inmates who are scheduled for

transfer or release or who are new arrivals

at the facility. Inmates are responsible for

notifying their correspondents ... of any

change of address.

Because it appears that the failure of Plaintiff to receive

the May 22 Order was caused in part by the failure of prison

officials at the Lancaster facility to forward that Order to

Plaintiff at the Tehachapi facility, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s failure to timely file the Amended Complaint is

excused and that dismissal of the action for failure to comply

with a court order is unwarranted. Plaintiff is again reminded

that it is his responsibility to advise the Court of a change in

his address for service by filing a Notice of Change of Address

in each case. If Plaintiff had complied with this obligation,

his mail would have been re-addressed and this dispute would not

have occurred. Plaintiff is reminded that his failure to comply

with the Local Rule and the First Informational Order may result

in dismissal of this action.

Case 1:04-cv-05343-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 09/19/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

The Judgment of dismissal entered on September 18, 2006 is

VACATED pursuant to Ninth Circuit remand. 

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to re-serve Plaintiff with

the May 22, 2006 Order. Plaintiff shall file an Amended

Complaint in compliance with that Order within 30 days of service

of the May 22, 2006 Order. Failure to timely comply will result

in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05343-OWW -DLB Document 24 Filed 09/19/07 Page 6 of 6