Belmonte v. King County

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 DAVID L. BELMONTE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01764-RAJ

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

14 KING COUNTY et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff David L. Belmonte 18 (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.1 Dkt. # 8. For the reasons set forth below, 19 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 20 As a preliminary matter, the Court must address that Plaintiff has filed identical 21 motions before several other judges in this District. The timing of events in the instant 22 matter is most similar to that in Plaintiff’s case before The Honorable Tana Lin. See 23 generally No. 2:24-cv-01762-TL. This Court adopts the reasoning elucidated in Judge 24 Lin’s Order. Dkt. # 11, No. 2:24-cv-01762-TL. 25 26

27 1 Plaintiff is also known as Dameas Shiruk Duranzan. Dkt. # 8 at 1. 1 On January 6, 2025, the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson issued a Report and 2 Recommendation (the “Report”) advising that the Court dismiss this action without 3 prejudice. Dkt. # 4. Plaintiff states that he “never received service and/or notice of the 4 R&R denying him any meaningful opportunity to raise objections.” Dkt. # 8 at 2. He then 5 provides that he was transferred from King County Jail to Coyote Ridge Corrections Center 6 on November 19, 2024, and that the Washington Department of Corrections “lost [his] case 7 files, including all records and filings with this court.” Dkt. # 9 at ¶ 7. Finally, Plaintiff 8 notes that upon asking the law librarian to search his case history, “[t]he Librarian 9 responded they [sic] found no cases with [his] name.” Id. at ¶ 8. 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) “permits a party to seek relief from a final 11 judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” Kemp 12 v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 533 (2022) (quotation marks omitted). Among those 13 reasons, “a party may seek relief based on ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 14 neglect.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)). 15 Here, there are sufficient grounds to grant Plaintiff’s Motion. The Clerk informed 16 Plaintiff of a deficiency with his application to proceed in forma pauperis in a letter mailed 17 on October 30, 2024. Dkt. # 2. Plaintiff had until November 29, 2024, to correct his 18 application, but during that time, he was transferred between correctional facilities and lost 19 the pertinent case files. Accordingly, it is plausible that Plaintiff’s failure to file objections 20 to the Report may have been the result of excusable neglect. 21 The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s request to consolidate this action with Belmonte 22 v. King Cnty., No. 2:24-cv-00518-JNW (W.D. Wash) is premature. That matter has yet to 23 commence, as Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor been approved to proceed in 24 forma pauperis. See LCR 3(b)–(c), 103(d). Moreover, Plaintiff should make such a 25 request in a separate motion. 26 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief 27 from Judgment. Dkt. # 8. The Court’s prior Order is VACATED. Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff shall 1 file any objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of this 2 Order. Objections should be noted for consideration for twenty-one (21) days after they 3 are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of 4 objections. The Clerk is instructed to transmit to Plaintiff a copy of the complete record in 5 this matter. 6 7 Dated this 4th day of March, 2025. A 8

9 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27