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)

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