Ronald D. Diggs v. Metro Police Department;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD D. DIGGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16792
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02339-RLH-RJJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ronald D. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to reconsider its order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action for failure to notify the district court of his change of address. We review
FILED
MAR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16792 2
for an abuse of discretion, Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 380
(9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), and we reverse and remand.
Denial of Diggs’s motion for reconsideration on the basis of excusable
neglect was an abuse of discretion where the district court failed to identify and
analyze the motion under the standard set out in Pionneer Investment Services Co.
v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) and in Briones.
See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court
abuses its discretion where it fails to identify or apply Pioneer-Briones standard
properly). A proper application of the Pioneer-Briones standard demonstrates
“excusable neglect” because Diggs’s failure to file written notification of his
change of address immediately upon release from custody showed no danger of
prejudice to the defendants, a minimal delay in the proceedings and impact on the
district court’s docket, good faith on the part of Diggs, and an excusable reason for
the delay. Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir.
2000) (applying Pioneer-Briones standard). Accordingly, we reverse and remand
for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --