Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107-4/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

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

NICHOLAS D. FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. HERRERA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-DB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATOIN AND 

REOPENING THIS CASE

(Doc. No. 19)

Plaintiff Nicholas D. Flores is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 13, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 14.) The service copy of the findings and 

recommendations, which were served on plaintiff at his address of record, were returned to the 

court marked as undeliverable. After no timely objections were filed, this court adopted the 

findings and recommendations on February 1, 2024, and this case was closed. (Doc. No. 15.)

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and objections to the findings and 

recommendations issued on November 13, 2023 in this action. (Doc. Nos. 17, 18.) Both of those 

filings were entered on the docket on March 4, 2023, though the handwritten date next to 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 21 Filed 04/03/24 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

plaintiff’s signature on each indicates that plaintiff signed those filings on January 16, 2024. (See 

id.) In those objections, plaintiff explained that on the night he was being transferred from 

Stockton Hospital to a new prison, he submitted his mail (including his notice of change of 

address for this court) to prison staff with U.S. postage for mailing, but the prison staff lost the 

mail. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff further states that “[a]ll this time I thought the court received my 

new address until today 1/16/24 I received my lost property and found in my partial crisis bed 

property said ‘notice of address change.’” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that he never received a copy of 

the court’s February 1, 2024 order dismissing this action, but he saw the order when he looked up 

his case through the law library at the prison. (Id.)

On March 13, 2024, plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration of the February 

1, 2024 order dismissing this action and closing this case. (Doc. No. 19.) Therein, plaintiff 

reiterates the same explanation he provided in his objections. On March 26, 2024, defendants 

filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, arguing that “[p]laintiff provides no evidence that he 

actually handed his mail to a correctional officer in January 2024, for mailing,” and “[p]laintiff 

concedes that he has a tablet and could check the status of his case at any time.” (Doc. No. 20 at 

3.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 

been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any 

event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

As a preliminary matter, the court does not agree with defendant’s interpretation of 

plaintiff’s statements as indicating that plaintiff “has a tablet” or that he could check on the status 

of his case “at any time.” (Doc. No. 20 at 3.) Defendants’ opposition is simply not based on a 

fair characterizations of plaintiff’s statements. In light of plaintiff’s representations, the court 

finds that plaintiff has demonstrated that reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 21 Filed 04/03/24 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

action is justified. Having considered plaintiff’s late-filed objections and his pending motion for 

reconsideration, as well as defendants’ opposition thereto, and out of an abundance of caution, the 

court will grant plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and reopen this case.

Accordingly,

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s February 1, 2024 order and 

motion to reopen this case (Doc. No. 19) is granted; 

2. The February 1, 2024 order of dismissal and judgment (Doc. Nos. 15, 16) are 

vacated;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this case; and

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 21 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 3