Hill v. Batchley

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYMEYON V. HILL, 7 Case No. 20-cv-06428-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 9 AND REOPENING CASE M. BATCHLEY, et al., Defendants.

12 This civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, who is a civil detainee, was dismissed without prejudice by the Court on November 16, 2020. Dkt. 3. The Court concluded that dismissal was required because Plaintiff failed to submit a timely application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by the October 22, 2020 deadline as set by the Clerk’s notice dated September 14, 2020. Id. at 1. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the dismissal by filing motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 6. He has also filed a completed non-prisoner IFP application. Dkt. 7.

19 Where the district court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration may be filed under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

26 Plaintiff contends that he did not receive a copy of the Clerk’s September 14, 2020 notice informing him that his action could not go forward until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed had dismissed this action because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Clerk’s September 14, || 2020 notice. Dkt. 3. The record now reveals that Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Clerk’s notice was because he never received such notice. See Dkt. 6 at 1. Rule 60(b)(1) provides for reconsideration where mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is shown, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), and Plaintiff has shown such proof worthy of reconsideration based on these || circumstances, see Dkt. 6 at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

7 || Dkt. 6.

8 CONCLUSION 9 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Dkt. 6. The Clerk shall REOPEN 10 this action, VACATE the Court’s November 16, 2020 Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Dkt.

11 3), and REINSTATE the amended complaint filed on November 12, 2020 (Dkt. 5), which is the || operative complaint in this action. The Court will review Plaintiff's amended complaint and his 13 completed non-prisoner IFP application in a separate written Order.

14 This Order terminates Docket No. 6.

3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: June 14, 2021 17 (QSDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS Z 18 nited States District Judge