Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00607/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00607-1/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

27

28

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-607-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

Pending in this closed case are Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 5) and lodged

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion and direct the

Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended Complaint.

I. Procedural Background

On March 18, 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). Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee or file an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order filed April 27, 2010 (Doc. 3), the

Court gave Plaintiff 30 days from the filing date of the Order to pay the fee or file a

completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account

statement.

When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s April 27, 2010 Order (Doc. 3), the

Clerk of Court entered a Judgment of dismissal of this action on June 9, 2010 (Doc. 4).

Case 2:10-cv-00607-RCB--DKD Document 7 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 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

1

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

Unknown Party, CV 10-124-PHX-RCB (DKD), and Neuendorf v. Steinhillber, CV 10-724-

PHX-RCB (DKD). 

2

Although the Motion was filed with the Clerk of Court on July 8, 2010, the

“Certification” attached to the Motion by Inmate Legal Services of the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office certifies that the Motion was mailed to the Clerk of Court on July 6, 2010.

Accordingly, the Motion is deemed filed on July 6, 2010 under the “prison mailbox rule,”

under which a pleading is deemed “filed” when handed by the prisoner to a prison official

for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988); Stillman v. LaMarque, 319

F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003). 

- 2 -

II. Motion to the Court

On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 5), in which he asks for

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

 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 served his Motion within the

28 days required by Rule 59(e).2

 Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion as

having been brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) 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).

In support of his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he has “tried to compile all information

needed for the Court but must ask the Court for leniency in l[ay]man terms.” Plaintiff further

asserts that he is “in jail with no monies and need[s] to reopen all above cases.”

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

circumstances of Plaintiff’s case, the Court’s previous Order filed April 27, 2010 (Doc. 3),

the record in this case, and Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court declines to set aside the Judgment

of dismissal entered on June 9, 2010 (Doc. 4) and reopen this case. The Judgment of

Case 2:10-cv-00607-RCB--DKD Document 7 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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. Lodged Second Amended Complaint

On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff lodged a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) in this

closed case. In light of the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 5), the Court will direct the

Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 5), which the Court construes as being

brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is denied.

(2) The Clerk of Court must not file Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. 6).

(3) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 14th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00607-RCB--DKD Document 7 Filed 09/14/10 Page 3 of 3