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)

Download PDF
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

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?