Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01610/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01610-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN

CDCR #D-76353,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. CARDENAS; RALPH M. DIAZ; W.L. 

MONTGOMERY; M. POLLARD; L. 

WOOD; M. CARRILLO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION;

(2) VACATING ORDER AND 

CLERK’S JUDGMENT; 

AND

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 21)

Charles Edward Allen (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

January 6, 2020 Order dismissing the entire action. (ECF No. 21.) 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB Document 22 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB

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

I. Procedural History

On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No. 1.) In addition, Plaintiff

filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) On September 27, 2019, the Court 

GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously DISMISSED his 

Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days 

leave to file amended pleading. (Id.) However, that time passed and Plaintiff failed to 

comply with the Court’s Order. Therefore, on January 6, 2020, the Court dismissed the 

action in its entirety for the reasons set forth in the Court’s September 27, 2019 Order and 

for failing to comply with a Court order. (ECF No. 17.) A Clerk’s Judgement was also 

entered on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 18.)

On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

January 6, 2020 Order. (ECF No. 21.)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

A. Standard of Review

Under Rule 60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” 

may be filed within a “reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year 

after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P.

60(c)(1). 

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is 

shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's 

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 

been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J 

v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “Although the application of Rule 

60(b) is committed to the discretion of the district courts . . ., as a general matter, Rule 

60(b) is remedial in nature and must be liberally applied.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. 

Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis 

Case 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB Document 22 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB

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

omitted). Nevertheless, Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked 

only upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 

972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994).

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to vacate the Court’s Order dismissing the 

entire action on the grounds that Plaintiff never received the Court’s September 27, 2019 

Order. (See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 21 at 2.) Plaintiff attaches to his Motion copies of his 

“incoming legal log” prepared by prison officials at Calipatria State Prison. (Id. at 13-

15.) These documents appear to corroborate Plaintiff’s position that he did not receive 

the Court’s September 27, 2019 Order. 

For these reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s request and will permit 

Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court:

1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 21);

2) VACATES the Court’s January 6, 2020 Order and the Clerk’s Judgment 

(ECF Nos. 16, 17);

3) GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a First Amended Complaint which 

corrects the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s September 27, 2019 Order. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference to his 

original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended 

Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, 

Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB Document 22 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB

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

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank copy 

of its form complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff must 

provide the correct case number and identify the pleading as his “First Amended 

Complaint.” 

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading, this Court will enter a final order of 

dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020

HON.JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB Document 22 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4