Gutte v. Chavez, et al

Filing 22

ORDER that the 21 Motion to Reopen Case by Eve Oro Gutte is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 3/24/10. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Court Order filed 4/27/2005)(KMG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eve Oro Gutte1, Plaintiff, vs. Antonio Chavez Hernandez, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 04-1179 PCT RCB ORDER

Currently pending before the court is motion by plaintiff

19 pro se Eve Oro Gutte requesting that this court "re-open" this 20 case because her "civil rights have been adversely affected." 21 Mot. (doc. 21) at 1.

On April 27, 2005, this court ordered

22 that plaintiff had until November 14, 2005, at the latest, to 23 file a second amended complaint.

Doc. 16 at 3.2

This court

24 "further ordered that failure to comply [there]with . . . may 25 26 27 28
1 When she commenced this action, plaintiff referred to herself as "Eve Oro Gutte." Since then plaintiff has used several variations of that name, including different spellings of her first name. For the sake of uniformity, the court will continue to refer to plaintiff as Eve Oro Gutte. 2

A copy of that order is attached hereto for ease of reference.

1 2 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

result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice." Id. Lastly, the court ordered the Clerk of the

Court to provide plaintiff with a copy of "`Filing a Complaint In Your Own Behalf[,]'" and according to the docket sheet, that was done. Id.

Nearly two and a half years later, when plaintiff failed to comply with that earlier order, on September 13, 2007, in a one sentence order, this court directed the Clerk of the Court to dismiss this present action without prejudice. 18. That same date, judgment was entered dismissing the Doc. 19. The Doc.

"complaint and action without prejudice."

docket sheet in this action indicates that on September 13, 2007, copies of that prior order and judgment were mailed to plaintiff Gutte at the address provided at her last known address. Quite recently, on March 18, 2010, the Clerk's

Office again mailed plaintiff Gutte copies of this order and judgment at the address provided on this pending motion. There are many reasons for denying the pending motion to "re-open." The court will briefly list the three most

glaring reasons. First, there is no case to "re-open" as this case was dismissed without prejudice, as noted above, and plaintiff never filed a second amended complaint as the court required. Second, as the court explained in its April 27,

2005 order that complaint did not allege a statutory basis for this court's jurisdiction. In other words, plaintiff did

not rely upon any statute authorizing this court to consider her case. Third, even without these deficiencies, there is

no basis for plaintiff's motion to "re-open" this case
-2-

1 2 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

because the six named defendants on this motion were not among the numerous defendants in the original complaint. Re-opening the present case is simply not a form of relief which is available to plaintiff Eve Oro Gutte. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the "Motion to Reopen Case" by Eve Oro Gutte is DENIED. Dates this 24th day of March, 2010

Copies to plaintiff pro se and counsel of record

-3-