Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04856/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04856-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW R. PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04856-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 45

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to vacate its earlier dismissal 

of defendant Clement. Docket No. 45. He asks that Clement be reinstated as a defendant and that 

service of process be ordered on her. 

In this district, no pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 may be 

brought without leave of court. See N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically 

show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from 

that which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the 

reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for 

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the 

emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a 

manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before such 

interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Plaintiff does not show that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have 

learned of defendant Clement’s address before entry of the order dismissing her. Plaintiff does not 

satisfactorily explain his extreme delay in finding the address and providing it to the Court. On 

April 29, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to provide a current address for nurse Clement no later than 

Case 3:18-cv-04856-SI Document 46 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

June 30, 2019, so that she could be served with process. Docket No. 22. Plaintiff was warned that,

if he “does not provide the information by that deadline, nurse Clement will be dismissed from this 

action without prejudice to plaintiff filing another action against her if he ever locates her.” Id. at 

2. After waiting several weeks beyond the June 30 deadline, the court dismissed defendant Clement 

on August 8, 2019, because plaintiff had not provided the needed information. Docket No. 29. 

There is no indication that plaintiff did anything to attempt to locate Clement before the June 30 

deadline. Plaintiff asked his girlfriend on August 28, 2019 (i.e., twenty days after Clement was 

dismissed), to try to find Clement; the girlfriend found an address for Clement, and sent it to plaintiff 

on or before September 5, 2019. Docket No. 45 at 6. Plaintiff then waited almost five more months 

to file his motion for reconsideration based on that information. Docket No. 45. That delay is 

unjustified. He did not exercise the diligence required under Local Rule 7-9(b) for the court to 

reconsider its earlier order. 

Other reasons also weigh against reconsideration here. Further delay while service of 

process is attempted on Clement at the new address would work to the detriment of the other 

defendants and be contrary to sound case management principles. This case is already about 18 

months old and the existing defendants’ dispositive motions have been pending for three months. 

Plaintiff missed the original deadline for his oppositions to those motions and had to obtain an afterthe-fact extension of the deadline – after defendants had already filed reply briefs and the court had 

begun working on the motions.

1

 Additionally, there is a reasonable possibility that the address 

provided for Clement may no longer be a current address because it was obtained more than five 

months ago and Clement is a “travelling nurse,” a position that involves occasional moves to new 

locations. See Docket No. 45 at 6-7. 

Plaintiff will not suffer undue prejudice if the motion is denied because he is within the 

limitations period to file a new § 1983 action against Clement. The events and omissions giving 

1 Plaintiff’s opposition to the correctional officials’ motion for summary judgment and his 

opposition to Dr. Bass’ motion to dismiss were both due on December 20, 2019. See Docket No. 

34. More than two weeks after the deadline, he requested an extension of the deadline. Docket No. 

43. The court granted the request, and the deadline for his opposition is now February 28, 2020. 

Docket No. 44.

Case 3:18-cv-04856-SI Document 46 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

rise to his claim against Clement occurred in August 2016, less than four years ago. See generally

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (residual limitations period is two years), § 352.1 (tolling for up to 

two years for the disability of imprisonment). Plaintiff should not have statute-of-limitations 

problems for a new § 1983 action against Clement if he acts with reasonable diligence to file that 

action.

The Court sets generous deadlines in pro se prisoner actions in recognition that such 

prisoners may have difficulties in accomplishing certain litigation tasks. But the Court expects that 

prisoners, like other litigants, be diligent and meet the deadlines that are set. Plaintiff failed to 

exercise diligence to try to comply with the order to provide an address for Clement and failed to 

exercise diligence to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of Clement once he did learn that address. 

For all these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 45. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04856-SI Document 46 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 3