Hurt v. Goldberg et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 3/19/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 TYRONE HURT,

Case No. 12-cv-06522 NC

12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14 MITCHELL C. GOLDBERG, U.S. District
Court Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

15 COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
16
17

OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendants.

18
19

On February 4, 2013, the Court dismissed Tyrone Hurt’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

20 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon
21 which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 6. The Court granted leave to amend and stated that
22 if plaintiff fails to do so within 30 days, the Court will dismiss this case. Id. at 3. The
23 deadline to amend has now passed. Hurt failed to amend the complaint, and, instead, filed a
24 notice seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the February 4 Order, to amend the
25 complaint, and for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 7 at 1-2. This filing does nothing to
26 correct the fundamental deficiencies of the complaint identified by the Court in its prior
27 order of dismissal.
28

The Court also notes that Hurt was recently declared a vexatious litigant. In Hurt v.
Case No. 12-cv-06522 NC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

epstakes Co
ontests, No. 12-cv-04187 EMC, 2
2013 WL 14
44047, at *1 (N.D. C Jan.
1-3
Cal.
1 All Swee
3),
rt
at
st
rt
twenty-one lawsuits in this
n
2 11, 2013 the Cour found tha in the pas year, Hur has filed t
ve
missed for f
failure to sta a claim; ten have b
ate
;
been
3 district. “Of these, fifteen hav been dism
ed
judice,” and five, inclu
d
uding this case, have n yet been dismissed, but
not
n
,
4 dismisse with prej
rom
o
s
cases. Id. at *1-4. Bas on
t
sed
5 “appear to suffer fr many of the same defects” as the other c
e
f
l
rict
past
he
6 the large number of frivolous lawsuits filed by Hurt in this distr in the p year, th
eclared Hur a “vexatio litigant, and order all futur lawsuits initiated by
rt
ous
,”
red
re
y
7 Court de
f
trict
ubject to pre-filing rev
view. Id. at *8.
8 plaintiff in this dist to be su

9

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDIC under 28 U.S.C. §
,
s
CE
8

(2)(B). See WMX Tech
e
hnologies, Inc. v. Mille 104 F.3d 1133, 113 (9th Cir. 1997)
I
er,
d
36
10 1915(e)(
0
o
g
le
of
mply
11 (“[A] plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend, may not fil a notice o appeal sim
1
ot
ended comp
plaint. A fu
urther distric court
ct
12 because he does no choose to file an ame
2
nation must be obtaine
t
ed.”); Estate of Conner by Mered v. O’Co
e
rs
dith
onnor, 6 F.3 656,
3d
13 determin
3
h
)
ctive notice of appeal, such as a n
e
notice from an unappea
alable
14 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (an ineffec
4
oes
est
rict
f
n).
15 order, do not dive the distr court of jurisdiction
5

16
6

To the extent Hurt’s filin seeks lea to appe in forma pauperis u
o
t
ng
ave
eal
a
under Rule

)
o
e,
t
at
s
17 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure the Court denies tha request as moot.
7
urt’s
ary
mitted Hurt t proceed in forma pa
to
auperis
18 The Cou Februa 4 Order, Dkt. No. 6 at 2, perm
8
f
horization is required under Rule 2
s
u
24(a)(3).
19 and no further auth
9

20
0

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

21
1

Date: March 19, 2013

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0652 NC
22
ORDER DISMISSIN CASE
R
NG

2