Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00006-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMAN D. SHEAD

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C/O VANG et al.,

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION, ORDER 

FOR SERVICE BY MAIL ON PRO SE 

PLAINTIFF

(Doc. No. 107)

On May 8, 2015, Herman D. Shead (“Plaintiff”) filed a Rule 60(b) motion alleging that 

his counsel (“Counsel”) both abandoned him and misled him to believe that Plaintiff was still 

being represented. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 105. Plaintiff asserted entitlement to relief 

under 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) in his motion. Id. at 3.

On June 30, 2015, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s claim for relief under 

Rule 60(b)(1), and ordered additional briefing for his Rule 60(b)(6) claim. See Doc. 106.

On July 16, 2015, the Court received a second Motion for Reconsideration from Plaintiff 

that failed to respond to the Court’s Order for Additional Briefing. See Doc. 107.

Upon review, Plaintiff did not receive the Order for Additional Briefing because it was 

only served upon Counsel. Plaintiff therefore lacked notice of the Court’s order. Accordingly, 

the Court will order that its previous Order for Additional briefing and the instant order shall be 

served on Plaintiff in his current address at San Quentin State Prison by mail. 

Further, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s second Motion for Reconsideration because it is

duplicative of his first motion. Cf. Doc. 107 with Doc. 105. Plaintiff’s latest Motion for 

Case 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 108 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Reconsideration alleges that Counsel’s practice recently dissolved, and that its clients were “left 

to fend for themselves” without notification. See Doc. 107 p. 1. However, the Court will 

consider this information when resolving Plaintiff’s original Motion for Reconsideration. The 

Court emphasizes that its denial of the latest motion (Doc. 107) will not impact resolution of the

original Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 105). 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 107) is DENIED as duplicative of his 

original motion (Doc. 105);

(2) the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 106) shall be served on 

Plaintiff by mail at his current address at San Quentin State Prison;

(3) this order shall be served on Plaintiff by mail at his current address at San Quentin 

State Prison; 

(4) Plaintiff Shall respond to the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 

106) by August 13, 2015; and

(5) failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to that order will result in the denial of 

Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 108 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 2