Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00346/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00346-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BARRY ERNEST OCHOA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VON LINTIG, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND; 

[Doc. No. 26] 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

REOPEN CASE 

 Plaintiff Barry Ernest Ochoa is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Von Lintig violated his Eighth 

Amendment right to adequate medical care. See Doc. No. 14. Defendant Von Lintig 

previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 20. Plaintiff did not file a response and the Court granted 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss as unopposed. See Doc. No. 23. The Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s claim without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 

accordingly. See Doc. No. 24. Plaintiff now moves ex parte for relief from judgment 

Case 3:19-cv-00346-MMA-JLB Document 27 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

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

and requests an extension of time in which to file a response to Defendant Von Lintig’s 

motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 25. To date, Defendant has not filed an opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion. 

DISCUSSION

 A district court may grant a motion for relief from judgment if the moving party 

can show, as relevant here, mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(1); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Whether the Court 

should grant relief “depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the 

opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) 

the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. 

United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (adopting standard to 

determine excusable neglect as set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. 

Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). 

Plaintiff alleges that his failure to file a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

was due to his mistake regarding the applicable rules, compounded by his disability and 

resulting difficulty in preparing and submitting legal documents without assistance. This 

merits relief under Rule 60(b)(1). See, e.g., Pioneer Inv. Srvcs. Co., 507 U.S. at 394. In 

addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff appears to be acting in good faith. Thus, the 

danger of prejudice to Defendant Von Lintig and the length of delay is outweighed by the 

other relevant factors. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and VACATES

the February 11, 2020 Order and Judgment dismissing this action. See Doc. Nos. 23, 24. 

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to reopen the case. 

Plaintiff must file a response to Defendant Von Lintig’s motion to dismiss on or 

before April 3, 2020. 

If Plaintiff responds, Defendant may file a reply on or before April 10, 2020. 

Case 3:19-cv-00346-MMA-JLB Document 27 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

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

Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will once again take the motion under 

submission without oral argument and issue a written ruling in due course. See SD 

CivLR 7.1.d.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: March 3, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00346-MMA-JLB Document 27 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3