-DAD (PC) Yellen v. Olivarez, et al, No. 2:1994cv01298 - Document 274 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/13/11 ordering that plaintiff's 08/29/11 motion 272 is granted. Plaintiff shall contact the Clerk's office to make arrangements to pick up the bottles that he has submitted to the court. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 04/07/11 motion for reconsideration be granted; The 03/01/11 order and judgment thereon be vacated; and this matter be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Motion for Reconsideration 259 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PC) Yellen v. Olivarez, et al Doc. 274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MIKE YELLEN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-94-1298 GEB DAD P vs. ANA M. OLIVAREZ, et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his rights under the Eighth Amendment were 18 violated during his incarceration at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) through exposure to 19 contaminated water that was both unsafe to drink and unsanitary for bathing, cooking and 20 maintaining oral hygiene. Plaintiff sought both money damages and injunctive relief. By order 21 filed January 18, 2011, plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was dismissed as moot. 22 On January 26, 2011, this court issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff did not file 24 objections to the findings and recommendations, which were twice returned as undelivered. On 25 March 1, 2011, the district court adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed the 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 action for lack of prosecution and for failure to respond to a court order. Judgment was entered 2 on the same day. 3 On March 21, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. Thereafter, the 4 Clerk’s Office reserved a copy of the March 1, 2011 order and judgment on plaintiff at his new 5 address of record. On April 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 1, 6 2011 order. Defendants oppose the motion. 7 Plaintiff contends that on August 16, 2010, he wrote a letter to the Clerk of the 8 Court notifying the Clerk of his new address. The letter was not entered on the court’s docket, 9 and there is no evidence of when it was mailed by plaintiff or that it was received by the Clerk of 10 the Court. With their opposition, defendants Gomez, Olivarez, Pacheco, Reeves, and Stiles also 11 present evidence that they did not receive plaintiff’s August 16, 2010 letter.1 12 After review of the record, and good cause appearing, this court finds under the 13 circumstances and in view of plaintiff’s March 21, 2011 notice of change of address it would be 14 unjust to allow the dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution to stand. Instead, the matter 15 should be resolved on the merits. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration should be 16 granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 17 On August 29, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for return of one of the bottles of 18 water that plaintiff previously submitted as an exhibit in this action. For the reasons set forth in 19 the court expert’s letter, those bottles and the water in them have no evidentiary value in this 20 action. See Letter from Anthony Saracino, filed June 10, 2011, at 12. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 21 motion will be granted and plaintiff will be directed to make arrangements with the Clerk of the 22 Court to pick up all of the bottles that he has submitted to the court. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 1 26 Defendant Spano filed a separate opposition to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and does not raise this argument. 2 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 2 29, 2011 motion (Doc. No. 272) is granted. Plaintiff shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make 3 arrangements to pick up the bottles that he has submitted to the court. 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s April 7, 2011 motion for reconsideration be granted; 6 2. The March 1, 2011 order and judgment thereon be vacated; and 7 3. This matter be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 13 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 14 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 15 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: December 13, 2011. 17 18 19 20 DAD:12 yell1298.vac2 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
