Conner 304527 v. Taylor

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 11, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-02525·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dayshaun Darion Conner, No. CV-23-02525-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 K. Taylor, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On December 5, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Dayshaun Darion Conner, who is confined 16 in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman (ASPC-Eyman), filed a civil rights Complaint 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a 18 January 10, 2024 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the 19 Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days 20 to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a March 26, 22 2024 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 23 to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that 24 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. The Court warned Plaintiff that the Clerk of 25 Court would enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if he failed to timely file a second 26 amended complaint. 27 Not having received a second amended complaint or a motion for extension of time, 28 on May 10, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered a Judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The 1 Clerk of Court sent the May 10, 2024 Judgment to Plaintiff at his address of record. On 2 May 13, 2024, the mail was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff was out to court in 3 Maricopa County. Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address. 4 I. Motion for Excusable Neglect 5 On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Excusable Neglect Pursuant to 6 FRCP 60(b)(1) and (6), Prayer to Reopen Case and for Leave to File a Second Amended 7 Complaint” (Doc. 12) and lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint (lodged 8 at Doc. 13). In his Motion, Plaintiff states that on March 7, 2024, he was transferred to a 9 Maricopa County Jail on new criminal charges, where he remained until May 23, 2024. 10 Plaintiff asserts he was unable to file a notice of change of address or “make any other 11 action in this case” because his paperwork and documents remained at the prison, and he 12 had no access to any information concerning this case. 13 Plaintiff states that on May 30, 2024, he received the May 10, 2024 Judgment. 14 Plaintiff asserts that he did not “understand the Court’s [Judgment] at the time” because 15 the Judgment referenced a March 26, 2024 Order, which Plaintiff states he never received. 16 Plaintiff states that on June 10, 2024, he was transferred to the La Palma Correctional 17 Center, and on July 25, 2024, he was transferred back to ASPC-Eyman. Plaintiff states 18 that at some point, another prisoner explained to Plaintiff that the First Amended Complaint 19 had been “rejected,” and this case had been dismissed and closed. Plaintiff asserts that any 20 untimeliness or failure to comply was not his fault because multiple transfers between 21 facilities resulted in him not receiving documents or notices about this case, and his lack 22 of experience “le[]d to Plaintiff not knowing what actions to take next.” Plaintiff asks the 23 Court to reopen this case and allow him to file the lodged proposed Second Amended 24 Complaint. 25 The Court construes the Motion as a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to 26 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b), which sets forth the 27 grounds for relief from judgment, “provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of 28 (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a 1 void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ 2 which would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 3 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). The moving party bears the burden of 4 proving the existence of a basis for Rule 60(b) relief. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 5 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). Although the moving party’s factual allegations are to be accepted 6 as true, mere legal conclusions, general denials, or simple assertions are insufficient to 7 justify overturning the underlying judgment. Id. 8 The Court will grant relief from the May 10, 2024 Judgment pursuant to Rule 9 60(b)(1) and will grant Plaintiff’s request to reopen this case. The Court will direct the 10 Clerk of Court to vacate the May 10, 2024 Judgment, reopen this case, and send Plaintiff a 11 copy of the March 26, 2024 Order. Because Plaintiff did not have the benefit of the March 12 26, 2024 Order when he drafted the lodged proposed Second Amended Complaint, the 13 Court will direct the Clerk of Court not to file the lodged proposed Second Amended 14 Complaint and will grant Plaintiff 30 days from the filing date of this Order to file a second 15 amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in the Order. 16 II. Warnings 17 A. Release 18 If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 19 been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court 20 that he intends to pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release or 21 (2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply may 22 result in dismissal of this action. 23 B. Address Changes 24 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 25 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 26 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 27 action. 28 . . . . 1 C. Possible “Strike” 2 Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a 3 claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies 4 identified in the March 26, 2024 Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3- 5 strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may 6 not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 7 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any 8 facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on 9 the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may 10 be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(g)U.S.C. § 1915(g). 12 D. Possible Dismissal 13 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 14 warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 15 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure 16 to comply with any order of the Court). 17 IT IS ORDERED: 18 (1) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Excusable Neglect Pursuant to FRCP 60

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Conner 304527 v. Taylor, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Conner 304527 v. Taylor (Conner 304527 v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Cassidy v. Tenorio
856 F.2d 1412 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)