Gordon v. Berryhill

Filing 15

ORDER dismissing as moot 10 Motion for Hearing; ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/15/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

STEPHANIE GORDON,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:18-CV-492 JCM (EJY)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is the matter of Gordon v. Berryhill, case number 2:18-cv-

14

00492-JCM-EJY.

15

Stephanie Gordon’s (“plaintiff”) complaint and dismissed her case because “[s]imply put, the

16

complaint fails to detail whether Plaintiff received an unfavorable decision from the SSA and

17

whether she fully exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing her instant complaint.”

18

(ECF No. 3).

On March 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge Foley screened pro se plaintiff

19

Magistrate Judge Foley instructed plaintiff to file an amended complaint by April 11,

20

2018. Id. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. Magistrate Judge Foley

21

then ordered defendant to file an amended complaint no later than November 26, 2018. (ECF

22

No. 7). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline.

23

On May 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Foley ordered plaintiff to show cause why this

24

matter should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 9). Magistrate Judge Foley specifically admonished

25

plaintiff that “[f]ailure to timely respond to this [o]rder to [s]how [c]ause shall result in a

26

recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.” Id.

27

Rather than respond to the order to show cause or file an amended complaint, plaintiff

28

filed a motion for expedited hearing on June 20, 2019, which remains pending. (ECF No. 10).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Then, on July 5, plaintiff responded to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 11). On July 12,

2

2019, Magistrate Judge Foley ordered plaintiff to file her amended complaint by August 16,

3

2019. (ECF No. 12). Finally, on August 1, 2019, plaintiff filed what she captioned an “amended

4

complaint.” (ECF No. 13).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff’s “amended complaint” states as follows:
Received yet ANOTHER notice to amend my complaint. Half of
line 22 isn’t there, and 23 through 28, with the exception of 3
periods on each line, are blank. What’s the clue? But yet the court
has refused to grant me any relief 2:19-cv-01046-GMN-GWF. In
a prior filing it clearly shows the criminality of ALJ Jenkins and
yet this court repeatedly refuses to hear my case. I didn’t get a fair
hearing there and I’m not getting one here. If you can’t do what
you took an oath to do, recuse yourself and move on. I can show I
AM entitled to benefits and have been. I will commence legal
action against Jenkins here shortly, and Shelley Hendren the NV
Administrator.

12
Id. at 1. The complaint then attaches a variety of exhibits without explanation. Id.
13
To date, plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies in her original complaint. Plaintiff
14

was cautioned that, if she elected to proceed in this action by filing an amended complaint, “the

15
court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make her amended complaint complete. Local
16
Rule 15–1 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
17

prior pleading.” (ECF No. 3 at 3).

18
Rather than indicate whether she received an unfavorable decision from the SSA or
19
whether she fully exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing her amended complaint,
20
21

plaintiff continues to allege “the criminality of ALJ Jenkins” and insist that she did not (and is
not) getting a fair hearing. (ECF No. 13). As a result, plaintiff’s amended complaint—like her

22
original complaint—fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Consequently,
23

plaintiff’s claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

24
Accordingly,
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s claims be, and

26
the same hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice.
27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for expedited hearing be, and the

28
same hereby is, DISMISSED as moot.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

The clerk is instructed to close the case accordingly.

2

DATED November 15, 2019.

3
4

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-