Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00745-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTHONY JAMA HALL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

On March 21, 2014, plaintiff Anthony Jama Hall (“Hall”) filed a complaint against 

defendants California Department of Social Services, Director of California Department of Social 

Services Will Lightbourne, Department of Health and Human Services, Child Protection Services 

Workers, Lisa Holman and other unnamed doe defendants, ECF No. 1, and a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Hall subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2014, 

alleging defendants removed Hall’s two children from his home and terminated his parental rights 

based on false statements about domestic violence. ECF No. 3 at 6. On January 15, 2015, 

plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. ECF No. 10. On May 5, 2015, the magistrate judge 

granted Hall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to 

amend. ECF No. 12. The magistrate judge stated in his order that Hall has failed to state a 

cognizable claim, but could amend the complaint to do so with sufficient facts in support, 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/16/16 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 

2

specifying a basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 9–10. The magistrate judge 

provided the format of an amended complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

10(b). Id. The complaint was served on Hall on May 6, 2015 by mail. Also on that date, the 

magistrate judge issued a minute order vacating the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, having already addressed the issue in the order issued on May 5, 2015. ECF 

No. 13. 

On June 1, 2015, Hall filed a motion for extension of time to file the amended 

complaint, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s May 5, 

2015 order. ECF No. 14. On June 18, 2015, the magistrate judge granted the motion for 

extension of time but denied the motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 15. The magistrate judge 

gave Hall thirty (30) days from the date of service to amend the complaint and file a motion for 

reconsideration. Id. The order was served on Hall by mail on June 18, 2015. 

On July 28, 2015, after the 30-day period expired, the magistrate judge issued an 

Order and Findings and Recommendations, recommending that the action be dismissed under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Hall’s failure to prosecute. ECF No. 16. The order was 

served on Hall by mail on the same day. On September 16, 2015, with no response from Hall on 

the docket, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations in full and 

dismissed the action based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 110. ECF 

No. 17. Judgement was entered on the same date in favor of defendants against Hall. ECF 

No. 18. The order was served on Hall by mail the same day. 

Almost a month later, on October 13, 2015, Hall filed a notice of change of 

address, noting that his address had changed on September 3, 2015. ECF No. 19. While the 

address was initially erroneously updated on the docket, the court did not send any mail to Hall at 

the erroneous address, since corrected.1

 

 1

 Although there are numerous “mail returned as undeliverable” entries on the docket, 

they are with respect to Hall’s children whose addresses were never updated after the magistrate 

judge found that Hall may only bring an action on behalf of himself in this case and is not 

permitted to bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining an attorney for them. 

ECF No. 12 at 4. 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/16/16 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

On December 31, 2015, Hall filed the current motion for relief from judgment 

based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), titling his filing “motion to reopen case.” ECF 

No. 20. He requests that the court set aside its order dismissing the action based on a 

communication failure. ECF No. 20 at 7. Hall contends the court should grant the motion 

because the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) failed to forward his mail to him after he 

changed his address on September 3, 2015. Id. 

The court finds that Hall has not demonstrated that relief from judgment is 

warranted under Rule 60(b). Hall only generally argues for relief but fails to provide a reason 

other than the USPS did not forward his mail. However, because Hall did not change his address 

until September 3, 2015, the only mail from this court that may have been affected by the change 

of address was this court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 

issued on September 16, 2015. Hall’s argument does not address why he did not respond to the 

magistrate judge’s June 18, 2015 order and amend his complaint, or why he did not oppose the 

findings and recommendations issued on July 28, 2015, and served on Hall the same day. 

Accordingly, Hall’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 12, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 3