Belmonte v. King County

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11 DAVID L. BELMONTE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01764-RAJ 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 KING COUNTY et al., 15 Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff David L. Belmonte (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.1 Dkt. # 8. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

As a preliminary matter, the Court must address that Plaintiff has filed identical motions before several other judges in this District. The timing of events in the instant matter is most similar to that in Plaintiff’s case before The Honorable Tana Lin. See generally No. 2:24-cv-01762-TL. This Court adopts the reasoning elucidated in Judge Lin’s Order. Dkt. # 11, No. 2:24-cv-01762-TL.

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 Recommendation (the “Report”) advising that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. Dkt. # 4. Plaintiff states that he “never received service and/or notice of the R&R denying him any meaningful opportunity to raise objections.” Dkt. # 8 at 2. He then provides that he was transferred from King County Jail to Coyote Ridge Corrections Center on November 19, 2024, and that the Washington Department of Corrections “lost [his] case files, including all records and filings with this court.” Dkt. # 9 at ¶ 7. Finally, Plaintiff notes that upon asking the law librarian to search his case history, “[t]he Librarian 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 judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 533 (2022) (quotation marks omitted). Among those reasons, “a party may seek relief based on ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)).

15 Here, there are sufficient grounds to grant Plaintiff’s Motion. The Clerk informed Plaintiff of a deficiency with his application to proceed in forma pauperis in a letter mailed on October 30, 2024. Dkt. # 2. Plaintiff had until November 29, 2024, to correct his application, but during that time, he was transferred between correctional facilities and lost the pertinent case files. Accordingly, it is plausible that Plaintiff’s failure to file objections 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 v. King Cnty., No. 2:24-cv-00518-JNW (W.D. Wash) is premature. That matter has yet to commence, as Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor been approved to proceed in forma pauperis. See LCR 3(b)–(c), 103(d). Moreover, Plaintiff should make such a request in a separate motion.

26 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. Dkt. # 8. The Court’s prior Order is VACATED. Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff shall file any objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Objections should be noted for consideration for twenty-one (21) days after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. The Clerk is instructed to transmit to Plaintiff a copy of the complete record in this matter.

7 Dated this 4th day of March, 2025.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge