Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

ECF NO. 45

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff Devon Bradford (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s February 21, 2014 order granting Defendants’ motion for 

terminating sanctions and closing this action. (ECF No. 45.) Motions to reconsider are 

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Barber v. State of Hawai’i, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 

(9th Cir. 1994). Reconsideration of a judgment “is appropriate if the district court (1) is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 

1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Defendants moved for terminating sanctions after Plaintiff failed to respond to this order 

granting Defendants’ prior motion to compel responses to certain discovery requests. The Court 

noted that Plaintiff had not participated in this action and for nearly six months, failed to provide 

initial disclosures to Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), and 

ignored Defendants’ discovery requests. The Court further noted that it appeared that the 

address in the Court’s records for Plaintiff was out of date. However, the Court admonished

Plaintiff for failing to comply with Local Rule 182(f) which requires litigants to keep the Court 

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 48 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 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

2

apprised of all changes of address. The Court further noted that Plaintiff informed the Court that 

he was evicted from his residence in June 2013, yet failed to provide the Court with an updated 

address for six months. On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff provided a notice of change of address. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration fails to set forth any grounds that would warrant 

reconsideration. Plaintiff attempts to shift the blame onto Defendants’ counsel by arguing that 

Plaintiff “was in contact with Mr. Wilson who never tried to get a proper address to where to 

send the paperwork.” (Mot. for Recon. 1:21-22.) It is Plaintiff’s sole responsibility to keep his 

address information up-to-date with the Court. Defendants’ counsel has no duty to submit 

change of address information to the Court on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff also contends that the 

order adopting the findings and recommendations failed to address the objections filed by 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s objections were filed on February 24, 2014, long past the deadline when 

they were due. The order adopting the findings and recommendations was signed on February 

21, 2014, before Plaintiff’s objections were filed. The order did not address the objections 

because Plaintiff had not yet filed them and they were untimely.

Although Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the period authorized by the 

Magistrate Judge is dispositive, this Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and 

recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections do not address his failure to comply with discovery as 

ordered by the Magistrate Judge on November 14, 2013. Doc. 36. Even in light of arguments 

raised in the untimely objections and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, dismissal remains 

the proper sanction.

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 48 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2