Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00293-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE DOUGLAS SMITH,

NO. CIV. S-07-293 LKK/DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

BRITISH PETROLEUM OF

AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Douglas Smith has filed a motion for relief from

final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that he was injured

in a slip and fall accident in February 2005 while he was

employed as a customer service agent at a service station in

Auburn, California. The service station was apparently operated

by defendant BP West Coast Products, whose parent company is

defendant British Petroleum of America. Plaintiff also named as

defendants two of the service station employees, Joel Buckentin

and John Lieuinger, as well as Mobile Storage Group Inc., who

owned the storage container that allegedly swung open and hit

Case 2:07-cv-00293-LKK -DAD Document 39 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 Plaintiff has also filed a notice of appeal, which is

ineffective until the court first disposes of the pending motion.

2 Subsequently, the court informed the Clerk’s office of their

mistake. The docket now reflects that plaintiff's objections were

timely filed, but that due to clerical error, they were not entered

on the docket until recently.

2

plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident,

he suffered three fractured ribs and a lower back injury that

required major reconstructive surgery. On July 31, 2007, the

court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction as to

plaintiff’s constitutional claims and for failure to state a

RICO claim upon which relief may be granted.

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for relief

from that judgment.1 Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief from final

judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect.” Attached to plaintiff’s motion is a copy of his

objections to the magistrate judge’s order and further findings

and recommendations issued on June 21, 2007. The objections

were filed on June 29, 2007. Inexplicably, however, the clerk’s

office failed to docket the objections, even though the date

stamp shows that plaintiff properly and timely submitted them.2

Accordingly, the court’s July 31, 2007 order, which stated that

“[n]either plaintiff nor defendants filed objections to the

further findings and recommendations,” was erroneous. 

The court has now reviewed plaintiff’s objections and

concludes that they do not change the court’s conclusion. 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law, and

Case 2:07-cv-00293-LKK -DAD Document 39 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 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

3

complete diversity between the plaintiff and defendants is

lacking. Plaintiff’s § 1983 and Bivens claims are barred by the

simple fact that none of the defendants were government

officials or were acting under color of law. Plaintiff’s RICO

claim is barred because he alleges only a single predicate act

of bribery by one defendant.

In his objections, plaintiff also noted that he was in

contact with the EEOC, presumably regarding a potential claim

under the ADA against his former employer. Nevertheless, it was

clear that, at the time of his objections on June 29, 2007, he

had not yet exhausted his administrative remedies or received

any right to sue letter, which is required to bring suit. 

Plaintiff filed a separate document on October 9, 2007, which

attached a right to sue letter issued by the EEOC on August 23,

2007.

Ordinarily, a right to sue letter that is issued after a

plaintiff files suit is sufficient to remedy the original

deficiency. See Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co., 744 F.2d 354, 655

(3d Cir. 1984) (“failure to allege the issuance of the

right-to-sue letter, which was not issued until after the

complaint was filed, did not render the complaint deficient”);

Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211, 1218 (5th Cir. 1982) 

(“the subsequent receipt of the right-to-sue letter cures the

defect with respect to the original filing of this action”);

Salfingere v. Latex, 971 F. Supp. 1308, 1309-10 (D. Ariz. 1997)

(collecting similar cases). 

Case 2:07-cv-00293-LKK -DAD Document 39 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Had plaintiff received his right to sue letter prior to

judgment, the court would have likely granted plaintiff leave to

amend. Here, however, the right to sue letter was not issued

until after judgment was already entered. Accordingly, relief

from judgment may only be granted pursuant to the grounds set

forth in Rule 60(b). The letter does not satisfy any of those

grounds.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The motion for relief from final judgment (Doc. No. 26)

filed on August 6, 2007 is DENIED.

2. The court finds that plaintiff’s appeal has not been

taken in good faith for the reasons explained in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00293-LKK -DAD Document 39 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 4