Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED ABDALLA

Plaintiff,

v.

M.C. KRAMER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5453 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 92.) 

 Mohammed Abdalla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 13, 2005, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Order

discharging the Order to Show Cause why default should not be entered against Defendant

Rexin. Defendant Rexin responded to the Order to Show Cause on October 26, 2005. On

October 24, 2005, Defendant Rexin also moved for an extension of time to file a late Answer. 

The Court discharged the Order to Show Cause on November 9, 2005, and granted Defendant

Rexin time to file his Answer. 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 93 Filed 12/15/05 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

Plaintiff’s characterization that Defendants did not know Defendant Rexin was a party is incorrect. The

Declaration provides that Defendant Rexin did not request representation by the Attorney General’s office, which is

required before the Office of the Attorney General can act on a Defendant’s behalf. 

2

Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that the new facts are that he did file an Opposition to the

Motion to file a late Answer. While this is true, the Court did not have in its possession

Plaintiff’s Opposition when it issued the Order discharging the Order to Show Cause. The Order

discharging is dated November 9, 2005, where the docket shows that Plaintiff’s Opposition was

filed on November 10, 2005. In any event, the Court did not discharge the Order to Show Cause

on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to file an Opposition. The statement that Plaintiff did not file an

Opposition was merely a reference to that fact. The Order discharging the Order to Show Cause

was based on the explanation provided by Defendants - namely that Defendant Rexin did not

inform the Office of the Attorney General that he had waived service nor did he request

representation.1 Given the explanation, the Court found that Defendant Rexin “showed good

cause” why default should not be entered. As a result, the Order was discharged and Defendant

Rexin was granted leave to file an Answer. 

Even had the Court had in its possession Plaintiff’s Opposition at the time it issued its

order, the conclusion and Order would remain unchanged. Plaintiff’s objections to the Motion

are that Plaintiff is indigent and that he believed that the Attorney General was biased. Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendant Rexin should have known what a “waiver” means. However,

whether Defendant Rexin understands waiver is irrelevant here as that was not the cause shown

to excuse entry of default. The justification for not filing an Answer was that Defendant Rexin

did not expressly request representation by the Attorney General. As stated above, such

representation cannot take effect until such a request is made by a Defendant on whom the onus

rests in obtaining representation. Plaintiff also states that granting Defendant Rexin time to

Answer to the allegations in his Complaint prejudices him because he has been seeking

retribution and resolution of this case for eight (8) years. Again, it is true that this case has been

pending since 2002, however, it has not been inactive for that period of time. Moreover, the fact

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 93 Filed 12/15/05 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

that the Court allows Defendant Rexin to Answer to the allegations in the Complaint does not

prejudice Plaintiff in that it is part of the process of the case and furthers Plaintiff’s desire to

resolve the case. Plaintiff apparently believes that by entering default against Defendant Rexin

for not filing an Answer, the case is concluded, however, this is not so. Entry of default is

appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought that has

failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff is

reminded that “[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a

judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).” 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55(c). Thus, even had the Court entered default, for good cause shown, it could

also set it aside and allow the party to proceed. 

Plaintiff’s contentions that the Defendant’s pleadings are unsigned or that the Court

Orders are unsigned is simply without merit. This Court processes cases by way of electronic

filing. Thus, a handwritten signature is not the method by which Orders or pleadings submitted

electronically are signed. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 93 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3