Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06071/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06071-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK LUCKEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06071-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL AND REINSTATING 

ACTION

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the Court’s February 20, 2019 

order adopting the Honorable Magistrate Judge Jacqueline S. Corley’s Report and 

Recommendation dismissing the case without prejudice. Dkt. No. 10. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the order.

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed this complaint against the United States and the United 

States Department of the Navy on October 3, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Despite multiple notices from the 

Court, Plaintiffs failed to file their consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge and 

failed to appear at the case management conference on January 3, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 3–5. On 

January 4, 2019, Judge Corley ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiffs did not respond. Judge Corley issued a 

Report and Recommendation on February 4, 2019, recommending that the case be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 7. No objections were filed. The Court adopted the Report and 

Recommendation, dismissing the case without prejudice. Dkt. No. 9 (“February 20 Order”).

A month after the Court dismissed the case, Plaintiffs made their first communication with 

the Court since commencement of this action by filing the present motion. Plaintiffs request that 

the Court vacate its February 20 Order under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b). Dkt. No. 10. 

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 11 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for 

the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The decision of whether to grant relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary. 

Towery v. Ryan, 673 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” 

claiming that the federal government shutdown in December 2018 through January 2019 caused 

confusion as to whether the case was moving forward. Mot. at 5–6. The Court is not convinced 

that this constitutes “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(1). The shutdown would not have affected Plaintiffs’ ability to file their proof of service,

nor would it have affected Plaintiffs’ ability to comply with the Court’s orders, some of which 

issued well after the shutdown ended. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service, nor 

does it appear that Plaintiffs have properly served Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4.

The remaining four reasons under Rule 60(b) are inapplicable as well. Nonetheless, 

Plaintiffs now appear to be willing to litigate the case. Consistent with the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on the merits, the Court believes that allowing Plaintiffs to move forward 

would be in the best interest of justice. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to 

vacate the February 20 Order dismissing the case. The clerk shall reopen the file. 

//

//

//

//

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 11 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court further SETS a case management conference for June 18, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. 

Plaintiffs are warned that failure to appear at the case management conference or to otherwise 

diligently litigate this case will result in dismissal. Plaintiffs also must be prepared to explain at 

the case management conference what steps they have taken to serve Defendants, given that no 

proof of service has been filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/31/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 11 Filed 05/31/19 Page 3 of 3