Denman v. Shubow
| Decision Date | 26 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 7302.,7302. |
| Citation | 413 F.2d 258 |
| Parties | Nathaniel A. DENMAN, Appellant, v. Lawrence SHUBOW, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Nathaniel A. Denman, pro se.
Appellee not appearing.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, Nathaniel Denman, appeals from an order of the district court denying reconsideration of a judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of prosecution. The complaint, an alleged civil rights action, was brought in December 1966. Throughout the proceedings in the district court and in this court plaintiff has appeared pro se. Also, he purports to represent his six minor children.1
On March 25, 1968, the case was called for assignment for trial in the district court. Plaintiff was not present at the call and as a result the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. He claims that on the morning of the 25th his alarm clock did not operate because he forgot to pull the pin; that at the time he was under medication to make him drowsy and slept until about 12:30 p.m.; that almost immediately after realizing that he had overslept he called the district court to apprise the clerk of his predicament only to find that his case had already been dismissed.2 It also appears that Denman was living alone on Cape Cod at the time, a considerable distance from the Federal Building in Boston. Notwithstanding this, he claims that he went to Boston without delay, tried to see the district judge to explain his absence at the call, but without success. Later that same afternoon (March 25) the instant long hand motion for reconsideration was filed. The record shows that the district court took no action on this motion until January 7, 1969.
Ordinarily in the absence of some good reason we would not be prone to excuse a party's failure to answer a call for assignment of his case for trial. Here, however, there appear to be some mitigating circumstances. Giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, we can understand why he overslept, particularly when he was taking prescribed medication to make him sleep. But after he finally awoke about mid-day he acted promptly to remedy the situation. The record does not indicate that he had been otherwise dilatory. Moreover, this is not a case where the witnesses had been summoned or where the trial was scheduled to begin that day. It was only the assignment day. There is no indication in the record that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., Civ. No. 84-0126P.
...19(c), the litigation of this case was not substantially delayed nor the docket disrupted by the failure to file. See Denman v. Shubow, 413 F.2d 258 (1st Cir.1969). Enforcement of the Local Rule is imperative to the proper functioning of the Court and is not to be lightly regarded. The Cour......
-
Cody v. Mello
...Cir.1970). See also Kotlicky v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir.1987) (citing with approval Denman v. Shubow, 413 F.2d 258, 259 (1st Cir.1969)). A calendar call is "[a] court session given to calling the cases awaiting trial to determine the present status of each ......
- Johnson v. Tennis
- Rogers v. McMackin