BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, No. 2:22-cv-01520-DJC-JDP
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Defendant.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 7, 2024, Magistrate Judge Peterson filed Findings and
Recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all
parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed
within fourteen days. (F. & R. (ECF No. 32).) In the Findings and Recommendations,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to comply
with court orders requiring Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s filings, and failure to
prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file an objection. The Court adopted the Findings
and Recommendations on January 10, 2025, and ordered the case closed. (ECF No.
33.) On February 4, 2025, the Court taxed an amount of $650 against Plaintiff
related to costs associated with Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a deposition. (ECF No.
38.) On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of those costs
(ECF No. 39), which was denied by Magistrate Judge Peterson on February 28, 2025
(ECF No. 40.) On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a new Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 41) of costs taxed against him, and a Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 42) asking the Court to reconsider all rulings issued
between July 1, 2024, and the present date. In his second Motion for Reconsideration
of the costs taxed against him (ECF No. 41), Plaintiff notes that the Motion is meant to
explain “why the accompanying motion [ECF No. 42] should be granted by this court.”
(ECF No. 41 at 2.) He goes on to state that the first Motion (ECF No. 39) he filed was
done so “with intentions of putting these courts on notice” that he would be filing “a
bigger motion [ECF No 42]” to explain his “absence in full details as to all orders since
July 1st 2024 to the present, which Plaintiff is now submitting with this motion.” (ECF
No. 41 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court will consider the newly filed Motions (ECF Nos. 41
and 42) jointly, as they both seek to provide context regarding Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to Defendant’s filings and court orders.
1. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Reconsideration of Court Orders
Plaintiff asserts that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the Court should
grant reconsideration of its prior orders dismissing his case, taxing costs against him,
and previously denying reconsideration. (ECF No. 41 at 1–3.)
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Motions should be construed as Motions for
Relief from Judgment or Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. As relevant
here, Rule 60 provides that a party may seek relief for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and (3) fraud (whether
previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (3). “A motion for reconsideration should not
be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873,
880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks & citations omitted).
Plaintiff documents that he is suffering from a shoulder and other bodily
injuries, and a mental health decline. (ECF No. 42 at 1.) Plaintiff also reports that from
July 2024 through October 2024, and currently, he has experienced or is
experiencing suicidal thoughts. (Id. at 6.) He points to these experiences, as well as
alleged mistreatment by Sacramento County Main Jail staff and opposing counsel, as
providing a sufficient basis for this Court to reconsider its previous orders. While the
Court recognizes Plaintiff’s negative experience at the Sacramento County Main Jail,
his proffered reasons do not constitute excusable neglect, nor does he sufficiently
identify misconduct by an opposing party that would justify reconsideration.
Where a party misses a filing deadline, as Plaintiff has numerous times in this
case, courts use the four-factor Pioneer test to determine whether it constitutes
excusable neglect. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380
(1993); see Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). Under
Pioneer, courts consider: [1] the danger of prejudice to the defendant, [2] the length
of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the
delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the plaintiff, and [4]
whether the plaintiff acted in good faith. Briones, 116 F.3d at 381. This is an equitable
test that takes into account “all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's
omission.” Id. “[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules
do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect . . . .” Id. at 382.
Here, the Pioneer factors guide the Court against reconsideration. As to the
first factor, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute has already delayed the case, and any further
delay from reopening and relitigating the case would continue to prejudice Defendants who have fairly sought to close this case. See Allah v. Rutledge, No.
EDCV171748JAKRAO, 2020 WL 8410446, *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2020). Second, and
relatedly, this case has already experienced significant prolongment due to Plaintiff’s
failure to respond to court orders and litigate. “Although Plaintiff's delay in moving for
relief from the judgment was relatively short, Plaintiff has been responsible for a much
longer delay in prosecuting the case at earlier stages,” and accordingly, this factor
weighs against Plaintiff. Id. Third, while the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s mental
state and conditions at the Sacramento County Main Jail, he has not identified any
compelling reason for his delay or neglect in making court filings. For example, he
has not claimed that he did not receive the Defendant’s filings or any court orders. Cf.
id. (finding excusable neglect when a prisoner did not receive a filing due to being
hospitalized and when the prisoner “attempted to file an opposition to the motion to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, No. 2:22-cv-01520-DJC-JDP
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Defendant.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 7, 2024, Magistrate Judge Peterson filed Findings and
Recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all
parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed
within fourteen days. (F. & R. (ECF No. 32).) In the Findings and Recommendations,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to comply
with court orders requiring Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s filings, and failure to
prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file an objection. The Court adopted the Findings
and Recommendations on January 10, 2025, and ordered the case closed. (ECF No.
33.) On February 4, 2025, the Court taxed an amount of $650 against Plaintiff
related to costs associated with Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a deposition. (ECF No.
38.) On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of those costs
(ECF No. 39), which was denied by Magistrate Judge Peterson on February 28, 2025
(ECF No. 40.) On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a new Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 41) of costs taxed against him, and a Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 42) asking the Court to reconsider all rulings issued
between July 1, 2024, and the present date. In his second Motion for Reconsideration
of the costs taxed against him (ECF No. 41), Plaintiff notes that the Motion is meant to
explain “why the accompanying motion [ECF No. 42] should be granted by this court.”
(ECF No. 41 at 2.) He goes on to state that the first Motion (ECF No. 39) he filed was
done so “with intentions of putting these courts on notice” that he would be filing “a
bigger motion [ECF No 42]” to explain his “absence in full details as to all orders since
July 1st 2024 to the present, which Plaintiff is now submitting with this motion.” (ECF
No. 41 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court will consider the newly filed Motions (ECF Nos. 41
and 42) jointly, as they both seek to provide context regarding Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to Defendant’s filings and court orders.
1. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Reconsideration of Court Orders
Plaintiff asserts that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the Court should
grant reconsideration of its prior orders dismissing his case, taxing costs against him,
and previously denying reconsideration. (ECF No. 41 at 1–3.)
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Motions should be construed as Motions for
Relief from Judgment or Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. As relevant
here, Rule 60 provides that a party may seek relief for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and (3) fraud (whether
previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (3). “A motion for reconsideration should not
be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873,
880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks & citations omitted).
Plaintiff documents that he is suffering from a shoulder and other bodily
injuries, and a mental health decline. (ECF No. 42 at 1.) Plaintiff also reports that from
July 2024 through October 2024, and currently, he has experienced or is
experiencing suicidal thoughts. (Id. at 6.) He points to these experiences, as well as
alleged mistreatment by Sacramento County Main Jail staff and opposing counsel, as
providing a sufficient basis for this Court to reconsider its previous orders. While the
Court recognizes Plaintiff’s negative experience at the Sacramento County Main Jail,
his proffered reasons do not constitute excusable neglect, nor does he sufficiently
identify misconduct by an opposing party that would justify reconsideration.
Where a party misses a filing deadline, as Plaintiff has numerous times in this
case, courts use the four-factor Pioneer test to determine whether it constitutes
excusable neglect. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380
(1993); see Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). Under
Pioneer, courts consider: [1] the danger of prejudice to the defendant, [2] the length
of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the
delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the plaintiff, and [4]
whether the plaintiff acted in good faith. Briones, 116 F.3d at 381. This is an equitable
test that takes into account “all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's
omission.” Id. “[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules
do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect . . . .” Id. at 382.
Here, the Pioneer factors guide the Court against reconsideration. As to the
first factor, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute has already delayed the case, and any further
delay from reopening and relitigating the case would continue to prejudice Defendants who have fairly sought to close this case. See Allah v. Rutledge, No.
EDCV171748JAKRAO, 2020 WL 8410446, *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2020). Second, and
relatedly, this case has already experienced significant prolongment due to Plaintiff’s
failure to respond to court orders and litigate. “Although Plaintiff's delay in moving for
relief from the judgment was relatively short, Plaintiff has been responsible for a much
longer delay in prosecuting the case at earlier stages,” and accordingly, this factor
weighs against Plaintiff. Id. Third, while the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s mental
state and conditions at the Sacramento County Main Jail, he has not identified any
compelling reason for his delay or neglect in making court filings. For example, he
has not claimed that he did not receive the Defendant’s filings or any court orders. Cf.
id. (finding excusable neglect when a prisoner did not receive a filing due to being
hospitalized and when the prisoner “attempted to file an opposition to the motion to
dismiss immediately after receiving, but it did not reach the Court”). As to the fourth
factor of good faith, the Court has insufficient information in front of it to properly
weigh this factor either in Plaintiff’s favor or Defendant’s. However, given that the
previous three factors weigh in favor of denying reconsideration, the Court concludes
that denial is appropriate. Simply stated, the general distress reported by Plaintiff
does not excuse his failure to respond to Defendant’s filings or court orders requiring
him to respond to Defendant’s filings.
Separately, Plaintiff provides unsubstantiated accusations against defense
counsel Porter Scott, alleging that defense counsel was a “major participant in having
deputies retaliate against [Plaintiff] to make it easier for [defense counsel] to defeat
[Plaintiff] in court.” (ECF No. 43 at 6.) The Court finds that these unsupported
accusations against Defendants and defense counsel do not constitute “misconduct
by an opposing party,” and the Court declines to use this as a basis for
reconsideration of its prior orders. And regardless of the merits of Plaintiff’s
allegations, none of Plaintiff’s arguments derive from information not available in
February 2025, when Plaintiff filed his initial Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39), and thus, the subsequent Motions (ECF Nos. 41 and 42) are not properly before the Court. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff's Motions for Relief from a Judgment or Order pursuant to Rule 60 (ECF Nos. 42 and 43) are DENIED. This action shall remain closed and no further filings in this closed action shall be accepted. Dated: _May 23, 2025 “Darel J CL bratter— Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DJC5-hunter222cv01520.jo