Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 The hearing date was later changed to November 28, 2007. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DANIEL PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01624-LJO-DLB-PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 87)

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff Robert Daniel Perry (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 30, 2007 the court

issued an Order vacating the Findings and Recommendations wherein the undersigned recommended

that defendants’ motion to dismiss for non-exhaustion be denied because a factual dispute existed

concerning whether plaintiff attempted to file appeal forms and whether the forms were intercepted

by prison officials. (Doc. 84). The August 30, 2007 orderset a telephonic Evidentiary Confirmation

Hearing for November 8, 2007, and an Evidentiary Hearing for November 30, 2007. (Doc. 84). 1

Plaintiff was ordered to file a prehearing statement by October 15, 2007, and defendants were

ordered to file their prehearing statement by November 2, 2007.

After both parties failed to follow the Court’s Order regarding the Evidentiary Hearing, the

court assumed that the parties were prepared to resolve the issue of plaintiff’s exhaustion of

administrative remedies on the prior pleadings. Both the evidentiary confirmation hearing and the

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 98 Filed 05/23/08 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

evidentiary hearing dates were vacated, and the court conducted a de novo review of the case. On

November 8, 2007 the court issued an order reinstating the magistrate judge’s Findings and

Recommendations. (Doc. 86).

On November 16, 2007, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s

November 8, 2007 order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. 87). Defendants

submit that their failure to file a prehearing statement was the result of defense counsel’s mistaken

belief that they were excused from filing their prehearing statement after plaintiff failed to file his

own statement. Defendants state that they did not intend for the court to resolve the motion to

dismiss on the pleadings, and have filed their prehearing statement with the instant motion.

Defendants request that the court vacate its November 8, 2007 order and reschedule the evidentiary

hearing. Plaintiff has also since filed his own prehearing statement, on May 1and 20, 2008. (Docs.

96, 97).

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms,

the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding

for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;...or (6) any other

reason that justifies relief.” The parties are informed that this court is overburdened with cases, all

of which are of equal importance. In this case, the parties’ failure to comply with a court order

resulted in the cancellation of both the evidentiary confirmation hearing and the evidentiary hearing.

Granting defendants’ motion to reschedule the hearing has the effect of slowing down the judicial

process for all parties litigating actions in this court, including this parties in this action. Having

reviewed defendants’ motion and this file, the court does not find just cause to grant defendants’

motion. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for reconsideration,filed November 16, 2007, is HEREBY

DENIED. Defendants are to file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint within thirty (30) days of this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 22, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 98 Filed 05/23/08 Page 2 of 2