1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES L. JOHNSON, JR., No. 2:22-cv-2220-DAD-CKD P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

15 Defendants. __________________________________ 16 17 Plaintiff James L. Johnson, Jr. proceeds in this action pro se.1 Pending before the Court is 18 plaintiff’s motion to reopen case 2:22-cv-02220-DAD-CKD P. (Member Case ECF No. 20.) 19 Defendants have not opposed the motion. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned 20 recommends granting the motion. 21 I. Background 22 On July 21, 2023, the Court issued an order reassigning case 2:22-cv-02220 KJM JDP to 23 District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, and renaming the case 24 2:22-cv-02220 DAD CKD P. (ECF No. 13.) The order consolidated case 2:22-cv-02220 DAD 25 CKD P with case 2:22-cv-02061 DAD CKD. Case 2:22-cv-02061 DAD CKD is the lead case, 26 and case 2:22-cv-02220 DAD CKD P is the member case. The pleading for the member case is 27 1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to

(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. 28 Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 found on the docket for that case, however that case was administratively closed. (ECF No. 13.) 2 On February 13, 2025, member case 2:22-cv-02220 DAD CKD P was reopened. 3 On December 14, 2022, defendants Hill, Avecilla, Torres, and Solano County Sheriff 4 (“Member Case defendants”) removed member case 2:22-cv-02220 to this Court. (Member Case 5 ECF No. 1.) On December 15, 2024, the Member Case defendants filed a motion to dismiss. 6 (Member Case ECF No. 3.) On March 7, 2023, it was recommended that the case be dismissed 7 for failure to prosecute. (Member Case ECF No. 8.) On March 17, 2023, the Court vacated the 8 findings and recommendations, and recommended that the action be dismissed a duplicative of 9 the lead case. (Member Case ECF No. 9.) On July 11, 2023, the assigned District Judge declined 10 to adopt the findings and recommendations (Member Case ECF No. 9) and ordered the parties to 11 file a joint status report about whether the member case should be consolidated with the lead case. 12 (Member Case ECF No. 11.) On July 21, 2023, the cases were consolidated, the member case was 13 administratively closed, and the case was referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings 14 “in particular, for purposes of addressing defendants’ pending motion to dismiss in the member 15 case.” (ECF No. 13.) A review of the docket showed that no action had been taken regarding the 16 Member Case defendants’ motion to dismiss. 17 On February 13, 2025, plaintiff was given another opportunity to respond to defendants’ 18 motion to dismiss in case 2:22-cv-02220-DAD-CKD P, and was warned that failure to respond 19 will be construed as non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and will constitute grounds 20 for dismissal. (ECF No. 31; Member Case ECF No. 15.) The undersigned also recommended 21 dismissing the motion for summary judgment pending in case no. 2:22-cv-02061-DAD-CKD PS 22 for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff also did not respond to the motion to dismiss in case 2:22- 23 cv-02220-DAD-CKD P, and the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s case be dismissed for 24 failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 32; Member Case ECF No. 16.) On March 31, 2025, the District 25 Judge adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed both of plaintiff’s cases for 26 failure to prosecute, and case nos. 2:22-cv-02220-DAD-CKD P and 2:22-cv-02061-DAD-CKD 27 PS were closed. (Member Case ECF No. 17; ECF No. 33; see Member Case ECF No. 18; ECF 28 No. 34.) 1 On May 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen case 2:22-cv-02220-DAD-CKD P. 2 (ECF No. 20.) The Court construes this as a motion for relief from judgment or order under 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends 4 GRANTING plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case. 5 II. Legal Standards 6 A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 8 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 9 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 10 an intervening change in controlling law.”

. The legal grounds for setting aside a 11 judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) include “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; 12 newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A judgment may also be set 13 aside if it is void or has been satisfied, or any reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)- 14 (6). A Rule 60(b) motion must be made “with a reasonable time-and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) 15 no more than a year after the entry of the judgment[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 16 III. Discussion 17 In plaintiff’s motion to reopen his case, plaintiff states in in December 2024 and January 18 2025, he changed prison facilities and sent defense counsel and the Court his updated address. 19 (ECF No. 20 at 2.) Plaintiff further states that he tried to contact defense counsel but did not 20 receive a response. (Id.) Plaintiff states he updated his address again in April 2025, and that is 21 when he received information from the Court about the status of his case. (See id.) 22 The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and finds that it sufficiently established 23 “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” to warrant reopening his case. The Court 24 recommends that plaintiff’s case no. 2:22-cv-02220-DAD-CKD-P be reopened. Plaintiff should 25 file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF No. 3 26 in the Member Case. However, the Court notes that this case was removed to this Court in 27 December 2022, and the motion to dismiss was also filed in December 2022. (Member Case ECF 28 No. 3.) The Court initially recommended dismissing plaintiff’s case, in part, for failure to 1 || prosecute on March 7, 2023 (Member Case ECF No. 8) before those findings and 2 || recommendations were vacated. Plaintiff is warned that any failure to file an opposition or 3 || statement of non-opposition will result in the recommendation that plaintiffs case again be 4 || dismissed for failure to prosecute. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Case 2:22-cv-02220 DAD-CKD-P be reopened; 8 2. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date these findings and recommendations 9 are adopted to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion 10 to dismiss; and 11 3. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition will 12 result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 13 DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 16 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 19 || shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 20 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 || waive the right to appeal the District court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 22 | 1998); Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 23 || Dated: November 5, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce

25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 || 5, john.2220.22 27 28