Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01757/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01757-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nathan Coronado,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Officer Chavez,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1757-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of

Dismissal Without Prejudice of Complaint (doc. #13), which the Court liberally

construes as a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to some aspect of

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). Having considered the motion in light of the record, the

Court finds that it should be denied.

The Court entered an order (doc. #9) and a judgment (doc. #10) dismissing

this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) on May 13, 2008. 

The basis of the dismissal was the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action due to

his failure to timely return the service of process packet and his failure to respond

in any manner to the Court’s order requiring him to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for his failure to return the service packet. While the

Case 2:07-cv-01757-PGR-MHB Document 14 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

plaintiff concedes in his motion for reconsideration that the dismissal was

appropriate, he argues that the dismissal should be vacated because the Court

was not aware at the time of dismissal of the circumstances regarding his attempt

to comply with the Court’s order regarding service. 

The following facts are relevant to the Court’s conclusion that no

reconsideration of the dismissal is now appropriate. The Court entered its initial

screening order (doc. #3) on November 19, 2007, wherein it ordered the plaintiff

to file an amended complaint, and informed him that he was required to file a

notice of any change in his address and that his failure to do so could result in the

dismissal of the action. The plaintiff clearly received this order as he filed an

amended complaint on December 26, 2007. The Court entered its screening

order (doc. #6) regarding the amended complaint on February 26, 2008; the copy

of the order mailed to the plaintiff was accompanied by a service of process

packet. This second screening order again advised the plaintiff that he had to file

a notice for every change of address and again warned him that his failure to do

so could lead to the dismissal of this action, and it advised the plaintiff that he had

to return the completed service packet to the Court within 20 days and advised

him of the time limits for completion of service, and warned him that no service of

process could be made if the completed packet was not returned and that the

action may be dismissed if no timely service was made. The plaintiff, who was

then incarcerated in the Maricopa County Jail, clearly received the second

screening order as he states in his motion that he completed the service packet

and submitted it to the jail’s Inmate Legal Services office on March 12, 2008 for

mailing to the Court.

The plaintiff was transferred from the Maricopa County Jail to the Arizona

Case 2:07-cv-01757-PGR-MHB Document 14 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Department of Corrections on or about March 14, 2008. Having not received the

completed service packet from the plaintiff, the Court entered an Order to Show

Cause order (doc. #7) on April 8, 2008, wherein it required the plaintiff to show

cause by April 29, 2008 why this action should not be dismissed due to his failure

to return the service packet. The copy of the OSC order that the Court mailed to

the plaintiff at his address of record at the Maricopa County Jail was returned as

undeliverable with the notation that the plaintiff was no longer in custody there. 

The plaintiff states in his motion that approximately one month after he was

transferred to the ADOC he received a letter, dated May 7, 2008, from the county

jail’s ILS office stating that they were returning to him the service packet that he

had submitted for mailing because ILS could no longer help him as he was no

longer in county custody. The plaintiff’s copy of the order and judgment of

dismissal, which the Court mailed to the plaintiff on May 13, 2008 at his address

of record at the county jail, was returned as undeliverable with the notation that

the plaintiff was no longer in custody.

The Court received the completed service packet from the plaintiff on May

23, 2008. The Clerk of the Court, inadvertently since the judgment of dismissal

had already been entered, returned the service packet to the plaintiff at his ADOC

address for correction, along with a change of address form. The plaintiff never

submitted a corrected service packet to the Court. 

The plaintiff filed his pending motion for reconsideration, as well as a notice

of change of address, on March 6, 2009. The changed address submitted by the

plaintiff was the same address that the Clerk of the Court used in returning the

service packet to the plaintiff on May 23, 2008.

The Court concludes that it need not decide whether the circumstances

Case 2:07-cv-01757-PGR-MHB Document 14 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 5
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

 The motion would be untimely even if the Court construed it as being

filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6).

- 4 -

merit relief under some portion of Rule 60(b)(1) because the plaintiff’s motion is

untimely.1

 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1), a motion filed pursuant to Rule

60(b)(1) must be filed within “a reasonable time,” which is defined as “no more

than a year after the entry of the judgment or order[.]” Although the plaintiff filed

his pending motion less than one year after judgment was entered, that is not

dispositive for purposes of Rule 60(c)(1) as the one-year deadline is merely an

outside limitation. See Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 520-21

(9th Cir.1987) (Court may deny a Rule 60(b)(1) motion even if filed within the oneyear period if the moving party is guilty of laches or unreasonable delay.) In

determining what constitutes a “reasonable time” for purposes of Rule 60(c)(1),

the Court must take into consideration the following factors: “the interest of

finality, the reason for the delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier

of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other parties.” Ashford v. Steuart,

657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Weighing these factors using the totality of the circumstances, the Court

concludes that the first three factors strongly favor the denial of the plaintiff’s

motion, while the fourth factor is neutral. First, since the plaintiff filed his pending

motion long after the time for appealing the judgment had passed, the Court must

give “great weight” to the interest in finality. Id. Second, none of the reasons

given by the plaintiff legitimize the almost 10 month delay between the entry of

judgment and the filing of the pending motion. While the plaintiff states that he

diligently attempted to determine how to proceed once he learned of the

dismissal of this action, which at the latest was in late May, 2008, he fails to

Case 2:07-cv-01757-PGR-MHB Document 14 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 5
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 -

explain, for example, what prevented him from simply contacting the Court to

request additional time once he discovered in early May, 2008 that the county jail

ILS office had not mailed his service packet to the Court, what prevented him

from filing a notice of appeal, what prevented him from following the Clerk of the

Court’s direction to return the corrected service packet to the Court in late May,

2008, etc. Third, the plaintiff’s failure to learn in early, 2008 that the service

packet had not been received by the Court, and his failure to rectify the matter

short of dismissal, was entirely his own fault as it was caused by his failure to

comply the Court’s two earlier orders requiring him to provide the Court with a

notice of his change in address. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal

Without Prejudice of Complaint (doc. #13) is denied.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01757-PGR-MHB Document 14 Filed 03/10/10 Page 5 of 5