Bumphus v. Maricopa County Community College District et al
Filing
8
ORDER that Plaintiff's 7 Motion to Reopen Case is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 07/01/11.(ESL)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
No. CV10-1522 PHX DGC
John Dan Bumphus, Jr.,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
10
11
vs.
12
Maricopa County
District, et al.,
13
Community
College
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiff pro se’s action was terminated on March 18, 2011 for failure to serve the
17
summons and complaint. Docs. 4, 6. On May 24, 2011, Plaintiff moved to reopen the
18
case on grounds that Plaintiff has been waiting for a court ruling in another case, No. CIV
19
09-2606-PHX-SRB, in order to “amend, file and serve the parties in this litigation.”
20
Doc. 7 at 1. Plaintiff asserts that the “litigation process began to move along again in
21
April of 2011 and, now the pro se plaintiff is prepared to proceed as necessary in this
22
matter.” Id. Plaintiff fails to explain how the absence of a ruling in another case in this
23
district stood as a barrier to Plaintiff serving the summons and complaint in this case,
24
why amendment was required prior to service of the original summons and complaint,
25
and why the presence of the ruling in the other case now entitles the Plaintiff to reopen
26
this case.1 The motion to reopen will therefore be denied.
27
28
1
Court records also show that Plaintiff’s complaint in the other case was
1
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 7) is denied.
2
Dated this 1st day of July, 2011.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dismissed with prejudice on June 7, 2011. No. CIV 09-2606-PHX-SRB, Docs. 50, 51.
‐ 2 ‐
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?