1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON LEVETTE WASHINGTON, Case No. 23-cv-00447-JST

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

9 v. PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Re: ECF No. 18 Defendants. 11

12 13 On January 29, 2024, the Court issued an order to show regarding Plaintiff’s failure to 14 effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff neither 15 appeared at the hearing on the order to show cause nor filed a written response. 16 On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untimely response, in which he explains that 17 obstructions to his residence impair his ability to retrieve mail. Id. 18 The Court construes Washington’s response as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 60(b). Reconsideration under that rule is appropriate only if “the moving party 20 can show (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or 21 other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other 22 reason justifying relief from operation of judgment.” Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 23 (9th Cir. 1985). “Relief under exception (6) above requires a finding of ‘extraordinary 24 circumstances.’” Id. (citation omitted). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Because Washington’s response does not bring him within any provision of the rule, his 2 || motion for reconsideration is denied. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 || Dated: April 12, 2024 ° JON S. TIGAR 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28