Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00998/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00998-4/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WENDELL WALTER JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

T. BYERS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00998-GSA-PC

 

ORDER VACATING ORDER 

DISMISSING CASE AND JUDGMENT

(Docs. 17, 18.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO REOPEN 

CASE

ORDER DEEMING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT TIMELY FILED

(Doc. 19.)

I. BACKGROUND

Wendell Walter Johnson (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on June 6, 2011 at the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1.) On June 16, 2011, the case was transferred to the 

Fresno Division. (Doc. 4.) On June 28, 2011, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) in this action, and no other parties have made an 

appearance. (Doc. 8.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the 

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case 

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and entered an order on 

February 20, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or notify the court of 

Case 1:11-cv-00998-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/14/14 Page 1 of 3
2

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

his willingness to proceed with the claims found cognizable by the court, within thirty days. 

(Doc. 16.) On March 27, 2014, the court dismissed this case and entered judgment, based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the thirty-day deadline in the court’s order. (Docs. 17, 18.)

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 19.)

II. DISCUSSION

The court finds good cause to reopen this case and deem the First Amended Complaint 

timely filed under the mailbox rule. Under the mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988), a pro se prisoner=s court filing is deemed filed at the time the prisoner 

delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 

1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). While Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed by the Clerk

on April 3, 2014, seven days after the thirty-day deadline expired,

1

Plaintiff signed the First 

Amended Complaint at Kern Valley State Prison on March 25, 2014, two days before the 

deadline expired. (Doc. 19 at 3.) Based on this evidence, the court finds good cause to deem 

the First Amended Complaint timely filed under the mailbox rule.

2

 

Because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was timely filed, Plaintiff did not fail to 

comply with the court’s thirty-day deadline. Therefore, the court’s order dismissing this action 

for failure to comply with the court’s deadline shall be vacated.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court's order of March 27, 2014, which dismissed this action, is 

VACATED; 

 

1

In computing a time period specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when the period is stated 

in days and the last day of the period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the 

end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(c). Moreover, pursuant 

to Rule 6(d), AWhen a party may or just act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 

5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)). Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(d). The court=s order granted Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the order in which to file an 

amended complaint, and the order was served on February 20, 2014. (Doc. 16.) Thus, Plaintiff had until March 

27, 2014, to file the amended complaint. 

2

Plaintiff has not submitted a proof of service of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 19.) However, the 

court finds Plaintiff’s March 25, 2014 signature to be sufficient evidence that the First Amended Complaint was 

submitted to the prison for mailing by March 27, 2014.

Case 1:11-cv-00998-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 3
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. The judgment entered on March 27, 2014, in this action is VACATED;

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reopen this case;

4. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on April 3, 2014, is 

DEEMED timely filed; and

5. The First Amended Complaint shall be screened in due time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00998-GSA Document 21 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 3