Lee v. Ho et al
Filing
23
ORDER Denying 22 Motion of Objection. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/4/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
2:12-CV-884 JCM (GWF)
ROBIN M. LEE,
8
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
PETER HO, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
ORDER
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff’s motion of objection (doc. #22) to an
15
16
order of dismissal (doc. # 20).
17
I.
Background
18
Plaintiff filed a complaint against several defendants on May 24, 2012. (Doc. # 1).
19
Plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment on June 18, 2012, prior to serving any of
20
the defendants. (Doc. #4). On June 26, 2012, the court denied that motion because the
21
defendants had not been served (doc. #8).1
22
Plaintiff then filed a motion for entry of a clerk’s default on July 6, 2012. (Doc. #9).
23
The court denied that motion, also, for failure to serve the defendants. (Doc. #10). Plaintiff
24
filed another motion for default judgment. (Doc. #11). The court denied that motion because
25
the plaintiff had yet to serve any defendant in this matter. (Doc. #12). The copy of the order
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
The court also denied a separate and independent motion that was supplemental briefing
to plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
1
(doc. #12) mailed to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (Docs. ## 13-14).
2
On October 5, 2012, the clerk’s office filed a notice of intent to dismiss the action due
3
to plaintiff’s failure to provide proof of service on any party. (Doc. #17). On October 12,
4
2012, the notice was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. # 18). On November 8, 2012, the
5
court ordered the dismissal of this action because the plaintiff failed to comply with Federal
6
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. #20). On November 19, 2012, plaintiff’s copy of the
7
order was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. #21). On November 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a
8
motion of objection (doc. #22) to the order of dismissal (doc. #20).
9
II.
Legal Standard
The court finds it necessary to provide the standard for various local rules and the
10
11
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m)
12
13
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 120
14
days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the
15
plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Further, “[d]istrict
16
courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may
17
impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous.
18
Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 830 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.
19
Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1961). The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly upheld the imposition of the
20
sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules
21
and court orders.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Courts have inherent equitable powers
22
to dismiss actions or enter default judgments for failure to prosecute, contempt of court, or
23
abusive litigation practices.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 916 (9th Cir.
24
1987).
25
B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 59 and 60
26
“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
27
of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion for
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
reconsideration should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court
2
is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
3
change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571
4
F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th
5
Cir. 1999)).
6
Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only
7
in the following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
8
discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the final judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied;
9
or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549
10
(9th Cir. 2000); see also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000)
11
(noting that the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
12
C. Local Rules LR IA 4-1 and LR 5-1(a)
13
“The Court may, after notice and opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate
14
sanctions on an attorney or party appearing in pro se who, without just cause: [f]ails to comply with
15
these Rules; or [f]ails to comply with any order of this Court.” LR IA 4-1.
16
“All papers required or permitted to be served shall have attached, when presented for filing,
17
a written proof of service. The proof shall show the day and manner of service and the name of the
18
person served. Proof of service may be by written acknowledgment of service or certificate of the
19
person who made service.” LR 5-1(a).
20
III.
Discussion
21
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), on October 5, 2012, the clerk of the court
22
provided notice to plaintiff that the action would be dismissed if plaintiff did not file proof of service
23
of process by November 4, 2012. (Doc. # 17). On November 8, 2012, the court ordered the
24
dismissal of the action for plaintiff’s failure to provide proof that any defendant had been served.
25
(Doc. #20). To date, plaintiff has failed to provide proof of service on any defendant.
26
Plaintiff’s current motion is an objection to the dismissal of his action. Since plaintiff is
27
acting pro se, the motion is construed as motion under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b). However,
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
even after giving this pro se plaintiff every benefit of the doubt, his motion can not overcome the
2
standards for reconsideration under either rule.
3
Further, plaintiff was warned on four separate occasions of the requirement to serve the
4
defendants. (See docs. ## 8, 10, 12, and 17). To date, plaintiff has failed to provide proof of service
5
to any defendant for any of the filings made by plaintiff, as required by local rule 5-1.
6
Plaintiff cannot in good faith say that he never received notice of this court’s prior orders or
7
the clerk’s notice of intent to dismiss. It is true that all these mailings were returned to the court as
8
undeliverable. However, it is also true that plaintiff managed to stay apprised of all pertinent
9
happenings on the docket. For example, each time this court denied plaintiff’s motion for default
10
judgment he filed another motion seeking the same relief. The dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit is
11
because of plaintiff’s own failures to comply with the rules.
12
Accordingly,
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion of
14
15
objection (doc. # 22) be, and the same hereby, is DENIED.
DATED February 4, 2013.
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
