Purnell v. Hunt et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion to Re-Open Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/09/2022. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No.: 1:20-cv-01759-JLT-EPG ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE (Doc. 19) N. HUNT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Georgette G. Purnell, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this civil- 19 rights action by filing her complaint on December 11, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 12, 2021, 20 the assigned magistrate judge entered a screening order, finding that plaintiff stated claims against 21 Defendants Hunt, Luper, Garcia-Peralta, and Carter for excessive force in violation of the Fourth 22 Amendment and failed to state any other claims. (Doc. No. 5.) The court ordered plaintiff to, file 23 a first amended complaint, notify the court in writing she wanted to proceed only on the claims 24 the court found cognizable, or notify the court in writing that she wanted to stand on her 25 complaint within 30 days. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff was warned that “Failure to comply with this 26 order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.) Plaintiff did not timely respond to that 27 order. 28 On March 8, 2021, the magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing, 1 1 indicating whether she intends to prosecute this action and explaining her failure to comply with 2 the January 12, 2021 order. (Doc. No. 6.) The order to show cause stated, in bold, that “Plaintiff 3 is cautioned that failure to respond to this Order as set forth above may result in the dismissal of 4 this case.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not timely respond to the order to show cause. 5 On July 1, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 6 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to complete service, failure 7 to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was afforded 8 fourteen (14) days to file objections thereto. (Id.) She again failed to timely respond. On July 9 27, 2021, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations, and the case was 10 dismissed. (Doc. No. 14.) On July 29, 2021, the court received a document entitled “objections to findings and 11 12 recommendations,” in which plaintiff asserts that she indeed forwarded service documents to the 13 Clerk of the Court as ordered on May 4, 2021. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff indicated in the July 29, 14 2021 filing that “because I’m learning now [that] the court never received these documents. . . I 15 am resubmitting them today. (See Attached.)” (Id. at 4.) However, no such documents were 16 attached to plaintiff’s filing with the court. On August 3, 2021, the court issued an order stating 17 that it would hold the pending objections in abeyance for an additional 14 days to “permit 18 plaintiff to file any such attachments for the court’s review along with any documentation that 19 demonstrates the documents were previously provided to the court in a timely manner.” (Doc. 20 No. 17.) That deadline passed without plaintiff communicating with the court, so the undersigned 21 dismissed the case. On September 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a “motion to reopen” the case, to which she has 22 23 attached numerous previously filed documents and what appears to be a service document. She 24 offers no compelling explanations for her ongoing failure to monitor this case, including her 25 failure to timely respond to the court’s August 3, 2021 order. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 Given plaintiff’s repeated and largely unexplained failures to abide by court orders, the motion to re-open (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED. This case remains closed. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2022 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?