Bierly et al v. Reyes et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-because the plaintiffs have not shown good cause to proceed given the expiration of the statutes of limitations, and the courts conclusion that the Complaint is therefore frivolousunder 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), the court dismisses the action. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 8/16/17. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
JORDAN BIERLY, TIM BIERLY, PETER
BIERLY, ELIZABETH BIERLY,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

vs.
SEAN REYES, MARK SHURTLEFF,
JULIE LUND, PAUL AMMAN, LIZ
KNIGHT, JUDGE OLAF A. JOHANSSON,
RICHARD ANDERSEN, BARRY
RICHARDS, DR. DANA HARDIN, JOHN
& JANE DOES 1-100,

Case No. 2:15-CV-00243
Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.
On July 31, 2017, after screening the plaintiffs’ complaint and finding that the relevant
statutes of limitations on the allegedly wrongful acts forming the basis of the Complaint had long
been expired, the court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate why
the action should not be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 14.) The court has now reviewed plaintiffs’
response. Plaintiffs acknowledge that “[t]hese matters took place many years ago” and offer
nothing to suggest that the applicable statutes of limitations may have been tolled. (Dkt. No. 15.)
Accordingly, because the plaintiffs have not shown good cause to proceed given the expiration
of the statutes of limitations, and the court’s conclusion that the Complaint is therefore frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court dismisses the action.
DATED this 16th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Court Judge
1