Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00745-4/pdf.json

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

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTHONY JAMA HALL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Anthony Hall is not represented by counsel in this case. On July 28, 

2015, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued findings and recommendations, which 

recommended dismissal after Hall did not timely file an amended complaint. ECF No. 16. These 

findings and recommendations were served by mail the same day they were issued. Hall was 

allowed fourteen days to object. Id. He did not file objections. The court adopted the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations in full on September 16, 2015, ECF No. 17, and judgment 

was entered on the same date, ECF No. 18. 

On December 31, 2015, Hall moved to reopen the case. ECF No. 20. He 

explained that the U.S. Postal Service had not forwarded his mail after he changed his address on 

September 3, 2015. Id. at 7. The court denied his motion on February 16, 2016. ECF No. 21. 

The court found that because Hall did not change his address until September 3, 2015, the only 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

mail he could not have received as a result of a postal system failure was the court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Id. at 3. That is, he did not 

explain why he did not respond to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which 

were filed and served by mail on July 28, 2015. See id.1 

On February 29, 2016, Hall moved for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 22–25. In a 

memorandum and declaration filed in support of his motion, he reiterates his difficulties with the 

Postal Service and describes disputes related to his post office boxes. See Mem. 16, ECF No. 25; 

Hall Decl. ¶¶ 26–34. He does not address whether he received the magistrate judge’s findings 

and recommendations or explain why he did not object to them. 

The motion is DENIED. Similar requests for reconsideration filed in the future 

will be disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 9, 2016 

 1

 This order erroneously stated a “complaint” was served on Hall on May 6, 2015. See id.

at 2:3. Rather, the magistrate judge’s minute order at ECF No. 13 was served on Hall that day by 

mail. 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 2