Opinion
CV-23-00580-TUC-RCC
07-29-2024
Alexander Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Target, Defendant.
ORDER
HONORABLE RANER C. COLLINS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Alexander Johnson's Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (Doc. 11.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motion.
I. Background
On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pro se Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Complaint against his former employer, Defendant Target, in which Plaintiff provided 9340 E. Redfield Rd., Unit 2068 Scottsdale, AZ, 85260 as his address. (Doc. 1 at 1.) On February 13, 2024, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim but gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 6.) The Order notified Plaintiff that if he did not file an amended complaint within thirty days, "the Clerk of Court shall, without further notice, enter a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice." (Id. at 7.)
The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the February 13, 2024 Order to Plaintiff at the Scottsdale address he had provided, but it was returned as undeliverable on February 24, 2024. (Doc. 7.) The reason listed was "Return to Sender, Attempted-Not Known, Unable to Forward." (Id.)
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. On April 19, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered a Clerk's Judgment in favor of Defendant, dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 8.)
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff, through his newly retained counsel, filed a Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to set aside the judgment and allow him to file an amended complaint because he did not receive the Court's February 13, 2024 Order notifying him that his Complaint had been dismissed and that he only had thirty days to amend. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff avers that he moved from Tucson to Scottsdale after filing the Complaint and placed a mail forwarding order to his new address in Scottsdale. (Id. at 2.) He asserts he did not receive the February 13, 2024 Order because "the post office began suddenly began [sic] redirecting his mail to his old address in Tucson." (Id.)
In the meantime, Plaintiff retained an attorney who, upon taking the case, learned of the Court's Order and Clerk's Judgment. (Id.) Plaintiff now argues that the Court should set aside the Clerk's Judgment because his "claims once presented by an attorney have merit and there is no prejudice to Defendant Target because a 42 USC 1981 race discrimination in employment has a 4 year statute of limitations and Target could be sued anyway under Section 1981." (Id.) He further argues that he would suffer prejudice if his case remained dismissed. (Id.)
II. Standard of Review
"On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any [] reason which justifies relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. (60)(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6) should be "used sparingly" and only where a party demonstrates "extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d. 977, 987 (9th. Cir. 2017) (first quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993), then quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005)).
III. Analysis
Here, no extraordinary circumstances warrant vacating the judgment. Local Rule 83.3(d) requires an unrepresented party to file a notice of change of address with the Clerk's Office within fourteen days in order to promptly receive court related papers. LRCiv 83.3(d); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) ("A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address."). The Court understands that, at the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and may not have known the Local Rules. For this reason, the Court takes additional measures to inform pro se parties of their responsibilities. Accordingly, on the same day that Plaintiff filed his Complaint, the Clerk's Office sent him a "Notice to Pro-Se Non-Prisoner Parties Representing Themselves" to the Scottsdale address he had provided. (Doc. 4.) The Notice specifically alerted Plaintiff that he must file a notice if his mailing address changes "to ensure [his] noticing is not interrupted." (Id. at 1.) The Notice was returned undeliverable with the reason "Return to Sender, Insufficient Address, Unable to Forward." (Doc. 5 (emphasis added).)
Even if Plaintiff did not review the Local Rules and did not receive the Notice from the Clerk's Office, he was nonetheless already aware of his responsibility to maintain a current address on file. Plaintiff's Complaint was submitted using an employment discrimination complaint form from the District of Arizona. (Doc. 1.) This form includes a warning for unrepresented parties that specifically states, "I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case." (Id. at 6 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff signed and dated the line below this warning. (Id.)
Plaintiff did not receive any filings in his case for five months because he did not provide a sufficient or current mailing address. More than two months passed between Plaintiff filing his Complaint and the Court's Order dismissing the case, and another two months passed before the Clerk's Office issued a judgment. At no point did Plaintiff follow up with the Clerk's Office or otherwise inquire about the status of his case.
Moreover, Plaintiff's argument that he did not receive the Court's Order because he moved from Tucson to Scottsdale after he filed the Complaint is confusing and not supported by the facts. As the Court explained, the address Plaintiff listed on his Complaint was a Scottsdale address. (Doc. 1 at 1.) At no point did the Clerk's Office mail documents to Plaintiff in Tucson. (See Docs. 5, 7.) And, to the extent Plaintiff might be arguing that the post office inexplicably reversed his forwarding order, thereby redirecting mail to Tucson that was addressed to his Scottsdale residence, Plaintiff has not offered any proof of this. The Court also notes the September 28, 2023 Determination and Notice of Rights from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-which Plaintiff attached to his Complaint-was addressed to Plaintiff at the same Scottsdale address that he gave the Court. (Doc. 1 at 7.) This contradicts Plaintiff's claim that he was living in Tucson at the time he filed his lawsuit.
The Court does not find that Plaintiff "willfully disobey[ed]" its Order when he did not file an amended complaint. (Doc. 11 at 2.) But Plaintiff's own failure to provide and maintain a correct mailing address with the Clerk's Office does not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Even if Plaintiff's arguments about mail forwarding were supported by the evidence, Plaintiff was aware that it was his responsibility to maintain a correct address, he did not do so, and he did not otherwise inquire about the status of his case for upwards of five months. Finally, Plaintiff's argument that his case would have merit if argued by an attorney, without more information, is conclusory and unavailing.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is DENIED. (Doc. 11.) This matter shall remain closed.