Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06699/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06699-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TELEDO M. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL HOWARD, 

Defendant.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-04-6699 AWI SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the January 21,

2005 Order granting dismissal of the suit. 

I. History

Teledo M. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of 121 East Kaviland Avenue in Fresno, CA. 

Carol Howard is an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. On November 12, 2004, Plaintiff filed

suit against Howard in Fresno County Superior Court, Small Claims Department, seeking

damages of $750 because “[Howard] Refused to deliver mail to my home address and we have to

pay Mail Box Fees! This has gone one for two years, 2002-2004.” Doc. 1, Plaintiff’s Claim. 

Howard removed the suit to federal district court on December 14, 2004 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1441, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), and 39 U.S.C. § 409. Doc. 1, Notice of Removal. 

On December 17, 2004, the United States of America (“USA”) made a motion to dismiss. Doc.

5. Relying on the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), the United States of America sought to

Case 1:04-cv-06699-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/21/05 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

27

28

2

substitute itself as the defendant in the case and dismiss the action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and Plaintiff’s failure to pursue an administrative tort

claim. See Doc. 6. Oral argument was held at 1:30 PM on Tuesday, January 18, 2005. Plaintiff

neither filed an opposition nor appeared in person to oppose the motion. On January 21, 2005,

the court granted USA’s motion in full on the basis that (1) substitution of parties was proper; (2)

USA had not waived sovereign immunity in this matter; and (3) even if sovereign immunity were

waived, Plaintiff failed to file an administrative tort claim which is required before Plaintiff can

bring suit in federal court under the FTCA. Doc. 10.

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a request for reconsideration on February 22, 2005,

claiming that she was not given proper notice of the hearing. Doc. 12. USA filed an opposition

on March 2, 2005. Doc. 13. 

II. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial

under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based

has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.” Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v.

Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460

(9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water

Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part

on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth

Case 1:04-cv-06699-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/21/05 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

27

28

3

Circuit has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the

preceding clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” LaFarge Conseils et

Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff claimed that she was never informed about the hearing of January 18, 2005 and

consequently did not have the chance to argue her case. Doc. 12, Motion for Reconsideration, at

1. In her original filing in Superior Court, Plaintiff’s mailing address was listed as “Post Office

Box 12567; Fresno, California 93778.” Doc. 1, Plaintiff’s Claim. According to the records of the

District Court, Plaintiff’s address is listed as “121 East Kaviland Avenue; Fresno, California

93706” (which is the address at which Plaintiff alleges she can not receive mail, forming the

basis of this suit). It appears that there was a mix up concerning Plaintiff’s address when the case

was transferred to this court. However, USA claims that Plaintiff did in fact receive notice of the

January 18, 2005 hearing as “On December 17, 2004, the United States provided Plaintiff with

timely notice of its motion to dismiss. The notice of motion, as well as all the moving papers,

were served on Plaintiff by mail to Plaintiff’s new mailing address: P.O. Box 12567, Fresno,

California 93778. The notice identified the January 18, 2005, hearing date and explained in detail

Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition and the requirements to do so.” Doc. 13, Gaab

Declaration. Review of the relevant documents shows that USA did in fact, effect service by

mail to Plaintiff’s P.O. Box and not her street address. Docs. 5-8. 

Plaintiff has not raised a valid basis for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). 

Even were the decision to be reconsidered, Plaintiff fails to address the legal bars to suit specified

in the Order of January 21, 2005. Plaintiff does provide a series of correspondences between

herself and employees of the U.S. Postal Service dealing with the problem of mail delivery. 

However, nothing in these letters affects the legal analysis concerning sovereign immunity and

the FTCA. 

Case 1:04-cv-06699-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/21/05 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

27

28

4

IV. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06699-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 4