RONALD DIGGS V. METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT, No. 11-16792 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD D. DIGGS, No. 11-16792 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02339-RLH-RJJ v. MEMORANDUM * METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2013 ** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Ronald D. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his motion to reconsider its order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to notify the district court of his change of address. We review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for an abuse of discretion, Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 380 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), and we reverse and remand. Denial of Diggs s motion for reconsideration on the basis of excusable neglect was an abuse of discretion where the district court failed to identify and analyze the motion under the standard set out in Pionneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) and in Briones. See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court abuses its discretion where it fails to identify or apply Pioneer-Briones standard properly). A proper application of the Pioneer-Briones standard demonstrates excusable neglect because Diggs s failure to file written notification of his change of address immediately upon release from custody showed no danger of prejudice to the defendants, a minimal delay in the proceedings and impact on the district court s docket, good faith on the part of Diggs, and an excusable reason for the delay. Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying Pioneer-Briones standard). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our disposition. REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 11-16792

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.