Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01392/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01392-2/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

ABDULLAH NAIM HAFIZ, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JAMES YATES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01392-GSA-PC

 

ORDER VACATING ORDER 

DISMISSING CASE AND JUDGMENT

(Docs. 8, 9.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO REOPEN 

CASE

ORDER DEEMING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT TIMELY FILED

(Doc. 7.)

I. BACKGROUND

Abdullah Naim Hariz (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 August 30, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On September 11, 2013, 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. 5.) 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 6, 2015, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend 

within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) On March 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:13-cv-01392-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/18/15 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

(Doc. 7.) On March 17, 2015, 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. 8, 9.)

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 March 16, 2015, four days after the thirty-day deadline expired,

1

Plaintiff signed the First 

Amended Complaint on March 10, 2015, two days before the deadline expired. (Doc. 7 at 5.) 

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 17, 2015, which dismissed this action, is 

VACATED; 

2. The judgment entered on March 17, 2015, in this action is VACATED;

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reopen this case;

 

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 6, 2015. (Doc. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff had until March 12, 

2014, to file the amended complaint. 

2

Plaintiff has not submitted a proof of service of the First Amended Complaint. However, the court finds 

Plaintiff’s March 10, 2015 signature to be sufficient evidence that the First Amended Complaint was submitted to 

the prison for mailing by March 12, 2015.

Case 1:13-cv-01392-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/18/15 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

4. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on March 16, 2015, is 

DEEMED timely filed; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01392-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/18/15 Page 3 of 3