Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01762-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. ESPINOSA, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-01762-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 9)

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

REOPEN ACTION AND PROVIDE 

PLAINTIFF WITH A COPY OF THE 

COURT’S SCREENING ORDER

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Larry Cruz (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 1, 2013. On 

October 28, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and 

found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

Defendants Dunn, Hiracheta, Silva and Espinosa, but failed to state any other claims. The Court 

directed Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court that he did not wish 

to file an amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim within thirty days from the date of service. (ECF No. 6.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

On December 9, 2014, after more than thirty days had passed and Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the Court’s order, the Court dismissed the action for failure to obey a court order. 

(ECF No. 7.) Judgment was entered the same date. (ECF No. 8.) 

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the order 

dismissing this action. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff submitted the motion for mailing on January 5, 

2015. (ECF No. 9, p. 31.) 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Applying the prison mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration 27 days

after entry of judgment. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for 

reconsideration, such as that filed by Plaintiff, is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days after the entry of 

judgment. United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e). 

Relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate when there are highly unusual circumstances, 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the district court committed clear 

error, or a change in controlling law intervenes. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon 

v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). To avoid being frivolous, such a motion must 

provide a valid ground for reconsideration. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 

505 (9th Cir.1986).

Here, Plaintiff claims that reconsideration is warranted because he never received the 

Court’s screening order dated October 28, 2014. In his declaration supporting the motion, 

Plaintiff reports that on September 8, 2014, he filed a “Request Update Status on Complaint” 

regarding this action. The Clerk of the Court sent Plaintiff a copy of the docket, which showed 

that Plaintiff’s complaint had not yet been screened. (ECF No. 9, Pl’s Dec. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. B.) 

Thereafter, on December 12, 2014, Plaintiff received the Court’s order that this action had been 

dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s October 28, 2014 order. Plaintiff declares under 

penalty of perjury that he never received the Court’s October 28, 2014 order. (ECF No. 9, Pl’s 

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Dec. ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff states that if he had received any court documents, then he would comply 

with court rules in a timely manner. (Id. at ¶ 12.) 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, and finds that they support relief 

under Rule 59(e) due to highly unusual circumstances. Plaintiff has represented to the Court 

under penalty of perjury that he did not receive the Court’s October 28, 2014 screening order. 

Plaintiff therefore should not be penalized for failure to obey a court order that he did not 

receive. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be granted. The 

Clerk of the Court will be directed to vacate the entry of judgment, reopen this action and mail 

Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s October 28, 2014 screening order. Within thirty days following 

service of the screening order, Plaintiff must either file a first amended complaint or notify the 

Court in writing that he does not wish to file a first amended complaint and he is willing to 

proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Dunn, Hiracheta, 

Silva and Espinosa.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to VACATE the judgment entered on December 9, 

2014, and reopen this action;

3. The Clerk of the Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s screening order 

issued on October 28, 2014;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a first amended 

complaint and he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendants Dunn, Hiracheta, Silva and Espinosa; 

and

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 4