Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02090-3/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

REAMEL CURTIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO VACATE JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 18)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO PROCESS PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

APPEAL

(ECF No. 19)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Reamel Curtis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

December 26, 2013. 

On November 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint with leave to amend within thirty days after service. Plaintiff was warned that if he 

failed to file a third amended complaint in compliance with the order, then the action would be 

dismissed for failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff failed to timely comply with 

the Magistrate Judge’s order. 

On January 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this 

action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

The Findings and Recommendations were served on the Plaintiff and contained notice that any 

Case 1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 4
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

objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (ECF No. 14.) No objections 

were filed. Thereafter, on January 29, 2015, the undersigned adopted the Findings and 

Recommendations in full and dismissed this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court 

order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 15.) Judgment was entered the same date. (ECF No. 

16.) 

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 17.) 

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. By his 

objections, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the judgment. He also requests a thirty-day extension of 

time to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 18.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a 

motion for reconsideration. 

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document that appears to be a notice of appeal. 

(ECF No. 19.) 

II. Motion to Vacate Judgment

Plaintiff submitted his motion to vacate the judgment for mailing on February 25, 2015. 

(ECF No. 18, p. 5.) Applying the prison mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed his motion for 

reconsideration within 28 days after entry of judgment. A motion for reconsideration, such as 

that filed by Plaintiff, is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. United States v. 

Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate when there are highly unusual circumstances, 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the district court committed clear 

error, or a change in controlling law intervenes. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon 

v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). To avoid being frivolous, such a motion must 

provide a valid ground for reconsideration. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 

505 (9th Cir.1986).

Here, Plaintiff contends that his legal property was taken from him fifteen days after the 

Magistrate Judge issued the order dismissing his amended complaint with leave to amend on

November 20, 2014. (ECF No. 18, pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff also asserts that he was transferred to 

Case 1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Pelican Bay Prison and prison officials refused to return his legal property. (ECF No. 18, p. 3.) 

Plaintiff also contends that prison officials deprived him of the “means” to respond to the Court 

in a timely manner. (ECF No. 18, p. 4.) Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension of time to file 

an amended complaint without obstruction. He also requests an order directing the return of his 

property, along with a restraining order to prevent retaliation. (ECF No. 18, p. 4.) 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find that they support 

relief under Rule 59(e) due to highly unusual circumstances. Plaintiff does not indicate when he 

was transferred or, critically, why he could not seek an extension of court deadlines without 

access to his legal property. According to the docket, Plaintiff made no attempt to request 

additional time to file an amended complaint following the Magistrate Judge’s November 20, 

2014 screening order. Plaintiff also made no attempt to contact the court or request additional 

time to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations regarding dismissal of 

this action, which were issued on January 6, 2015. Indeed, Plaintiff does not explain why he was 

unable to contact the Court in the more than three-month period between the Magistrate Judge’s 

November 2014 screening order and the subsequent dismissal of this action in January 2015. 

Plaintiff has not provided grounds supporting his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 

However, in addition to the motion, Plaintiff also has filed a notice of appeal. Accordingly, the 

Court will direct the Clerk to process the notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment, filed on March 2, 2015, is HEREBY 

DENIED; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process Plaintiff’s notice of appeal filed on 

March 20, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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.

Case 1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 4 of 4