Opinion
1:13-cv-01392-GSA-PC
03-18-2015
ABDULLAH NAIM HAFIZ, Plaintiff, v. JAMES YATES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER VACATING ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND JUDGMENT
(Docs. 8, 9.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO REOPEN CASE ORDER DEEMING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TIMELY FILED
(Doc. 7.)
I. BACKGROUND
Abdullah Naim Hariz ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on August 30, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) in this action, and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and entered an order on February 6, 2015, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) On March 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) On March 17, 2015, the court dismissed this case and entered judgment, based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the thirty-day deadline in the court's order. (Docs. 8, 9.)
II. DISCUSSION
The court finds good cause to reopen this case and deem the First Amended Complaint timely filed under the mailbox rule. Under the mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988), a pro se prisoner's court filing is deemed filed at the time the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). While Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed by the Clerk on March 16, 2015, four days after the thirty-day deadline expired, Plaintiff signed the First Amended Complaint on March 10, 2015, two days before the deadline expired. (Doc. 7 at 5.) Based on this evidence, the court finds good cause to deem the First Amended Complaint timely filed under the mailbox rule.
In computing a time period specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when the period is stated in days and the last day of the period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(c). Moreover, pursuant to Rule 6(d), "When a party may or just act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The court's order granted Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the order in which to file an amended complaint, and the order was served on February 6, 2015. (Doc. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff had until March 12, 2014, to file the amended complaint.
Plaintiff has not submitted a proof of service of the First Amended Complaint. However, the court finds Plaintiff's March 10, 2015 signature to be sufficient evidence that the First Amended Complaint was submitted to the prison for mailing by March 12, 2015.
Because Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was timely filed, Plaintiff did not fail to comply with the court's thirty-day deadline. Therefore, the court's order dismissing this action for failure to comply with the court's deadline shall be vacated.
III. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The court's order of March 17, 2015, which dismissed this action, is VACATED;
2. The judgment entered on March 17, 2015, in this action is VACATED;
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reopen this case;
4. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed on March 16, 2015, is DEEMED timely filed; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
5. The First Amended Complaint shall be screened in due time.
Dated: March 18 , 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE