Jett v. Potter

Filing 26

ORDER Denying Amended Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 1/25/2010. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/26/2010: # 1 Certificate of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant. _______________________________/ The court is in receipt of an Amended Notice of Motion to Reopen Case, filed by plaintiff on January 19, 2010. Notwithstanding the fact that the court denied plaintiff's request to reopen the underlying action a mere two weeks prior, plaintiff once again requests the same relief, this time on grounds, in part, that plaintiff is "an indigent and pro se" and furthermore, on grounds that plaintiff did "go through procedures and ... exhausted all of [her] Administrative requirements and alternatives." For the reasons stated in its prior order dated January 5, 2010, plaintiff's request remains untimely and moot, given the Ninth Circuit's opinion affirming the dismissal of this action on the merits. Plaintiff's request also remains substantively deficient, for the additional reason that plaintiff fails to address the exhaustion deficiencies upon which the original dismissal of her complaint was based. To the extent plaintiff's amended motion adds the argument that she sent certain documents to the district and appellate courts and thus requests that the court "review all of [the] documents that [she] sent," this is not enough to overcome the exhaustion deficiencies previously identified by the court, even assuming that plaintiff had timely presented the instant motion. In sum, plaintiff's amended request to reopen her case does not, and cannot YVONNE JETT, Plaintiff, No. C 08-4290 PJH ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION TO REOPEN CASE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 succeed where her prior request failed, in view of the court's prior dismissal of the case and the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of that order. Thus, plaintiff's amended motion to reopen her case is DENIED. The court further notifies plaintiff that it will not consider any future filings or requests submitted by plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 25, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?