(PC) Springfield v. CDCR et al, No. 2:2023cv00594 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2024)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 7/26/2024 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's Motion to vacate judgment 12 be denied. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No. 2:23-cv-00594-DAD-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BE DENIED v. CDCR, et al., ECF No. 12 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this closed 19 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff moves to vacate the court’s judgment 20 because he claims to have filed a response to the court’s September 20 order and because he 21 claims that he never received the court’s November 17, February 7, and March 13 orders. 22 By way of background, on March 29, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that 23 defendants CDCR, California Health Care Facility Stockton, and dentists Kevin Tan and Kevin 24 Williams violated his civil rights. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or move to 25 proceed in forma pauperis, so on April 24, 2023, I ordered plaintiff to either pay the fee or file an 26 in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 27 No. 5, but since his prison trust account demonstrated a balance of over $3,000, I ordered plaintiff 28 1 to show cause why he should be granted in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed a 2 response, ECF No. 6, and, approximately two months later, plaintiff’s address was updated by 3 court staff to 154 E. 85th Street, Los Angeles, pursuant to a notice of change of address filed in 4 Springfield v. Hudson, 2:22-cv-00328-DAD-CKD, ECF No. 41. 5 On September 20, 2023, I granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 6 screened his complaint. ECF No. 7. In that order, I gave plaintiff the option to file within thirty 7 days either an amended complaint or a notice that he wished to proceed with the cognizable 8 claims identified in the screening order. Id. When plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline, I 9 issued an order to show cause on November 17, 2023 for why this action should not be dismissed 10 for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the September 20 order. ECF No. 8. I explained that I 11 would recommend that this action be dismissed if plaintiff failed to file a response. Id. Plaintiff 12 failed to respond again, so, on February 7, 2024, I recommended that this action be dismissed 13 based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 9. On 14 March 13, 2024, the district judge adopted those findings in full and dismissed this action. ECF 15 Nos. 10 & 11. The docket reflects that the September 20, the November 17, February 7, and 16 March 13 orders were served on plaintiff’s Los Angeles address, and none of the orders were 17 returned to the court as undeliverable. 18 Two months after the district judge dismissed this action, plaintiff filed this motion to 19 vacate the judgment. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff argues that the judgment should be vacated because 20 he filed a motion on September 28, 2023, asking to proceed on his cognizable claims (as directed 21 by the September 20 order) and because the court did not mail him a copy of the February 7, 2024 22 order. Id. at 2-3. He states that the last time he received a court order was September 20, 2023, 23 and that he only learned that this action had been dismissed on May 3, 2024. ECF No. 12-1 at 2. 24 Having considered the record, I recommend that his motion to vacate the judgment be denied. 25 Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any order 26 based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 27 which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of entry of 28 judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. 2 1 P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within 2 one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Under 3 Rule 60(b), the court may also grant reconsideration if: (1) the judgment is void; (2) the 4 judgement has been satisfied, released, or discharged, an earlier judgment has been reversed or 5 vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any other reason 6 that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration on any of 7 these grounds must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 8 9 Plaintiff does not argue that there has been an intervening change in the law or that there is new evidence. Plaintiff thus appears to argue that the court should amend its judgment to 10 correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 11 (9th Cir. 2011). However, plaintiff fails to offer any reasonable explanation to support his theory 12 that he never received any of the court’s orders. None of the orders mailed to plaintiff were 13 returned as undeliverable and the court mailed each order to the address provided by plaintiff— 14 and that plaintiff is still using. See ECF No. 12-1 at 1. Further, the court never received the 15 motion that plaintiff allegedly filed on September 28, 2023. The docket reflects that plaintiff’s 16 latest filing (apart from the current one) was filed on June 8, 2023. ECF No. 6. The court has 17 provided plaintiff with ample opportunity to prosecute this action. Even if I accepted plaintiff’s 18 assertion that he never received any of the court’s orders, he was under an affirmative duty to 19 prosecute this action, yet he did not inquire about the status of his case for over half a year. 20 Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for relief under Rule 60(b) from the court’s 21 dismissal order and judgment, and I recommend that his motion be denied. 22 23 24 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment, ECF No. 12, be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 3 1 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 26, 2024 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
