Kinnard v. Navarro
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Judge White granted relief from judgment and ordered a final amended complaint, without deciding whether its defects were cured.
Kenneth Kinnard, whose judgment was vacated and case reopened, and who received a final opportunity to amend his complaint; the defendants were not required to respond at this stage.
What happened
In Kinnard v. Navarro, Kenneth Kinnard’s case had been dismissed after the court found that his amended complaint did not state a claim, did not establish federal jurisdiction, and raised claims the court considered time-barred.
Kinnard asked the court to set aside the judgment, explaining that illness and isolation had prevented him from getting planned assistance or using a computer to prepare his amended complaint. The court found that his request was timely.
Judge White granted Kinnard’s motion under the rule allowing relief in extraordinary circumstances, vacated the judgment, reopened the case, and gave him a final opportunity to file an amended complaint by August 26, 2022. The court did not decide that Kinnard had cured the pleading defects.
The detailed version
- Kinnard v. Navarro · No. 4:22-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- July 27, 2022
Background
Kenneth Kinnard filed the original complaint on April 26, 2022, and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Kim granted that request but held service of the complaint because the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Kinnard was ordered to file an amended complaint.
Kinnard filed an amended complaint on July 1, 2022. The court found that it did not correct the deficiencies identified in the earlier screening order. The court concluded that the amended complaint failed to state a claim, did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, and asserted claims that were time-barred. The court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and entered judgment.
Motion for relief
Kinnard moved for reconsideration of the July 12, 2022 dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He said that he became ill and spent time in isolation without access to a computer, preventing him from obtaining intended assistance from a team that helps people representing themselves and from preparing the amended complaint as planned. He asked the court to vacate the judgment because of excusable neglect and allow him to continue the case with assistance.
The court determined that Kinnard filed the motion within a reasonable time because he filed it less than two weeks after the case was closed. The court concluded that relief based specifically on excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) was not appropriate because the filing failure did not cause the court’s decision to dismiss the action.
The court nevertheless considered Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason that justifies it and is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. The court concluded that Kinnard’s illness, isolation, and lack of computer access qualified, particularly because he was representing himself.
Ruling
The court granted Kinnard’s motion, vacated the judgment, and directed the Clerk to reopen the case. Although the court had serious doubts that Kinnard could correct the defects and he provided no additional information showing how amendment would do so, the court gave him a final opportunity to file a second amended complaint by August 26, 2022. The court stated that if the amended complaint again failed to correct the deficiencies, it would dismiss the case under Section 1915(e)(2). Judge Jeffrey S. White did not decide the merits of Kinnard’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.