HOBBY v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al, No. 1:2020cv03842 - Document 7 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 3/18/2021. (adh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HOBBY v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al Doc. 7 Case 1:20-cv-03842-UNA Document 7 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 1 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al., ) ) Defendants. ) 3/18/2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY, Civil Action No. 20-3842 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed what is construed to be a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. # 6 (“Motion in Response to Dismissal and a Request for Reinstatement”). She seeks relief from the order entered on January 19, 2021, which dismissed this action for insufficient pleading under Rule 8. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 3]. In its discretion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for any one of six enumerated reasons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). The instant motion and its assorted attachments provide no discernible grounds to merit reopening this case. See Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (a party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) must offer “a hint of a suggestion” that she might prevail if the case is reopened) (quoting Marino v. DEA, 685 F.3d 1076, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). Plaintiff’s confusing attempts to amend the complaint, see generally attachments, do not cure the pleading defects. See Mem. Op. at 2 ( noting that “[i]nstead of differentiating her intended claims and succinctly identifying her allegations and entitlement to relief, plaintiff presents a rambling and disorganized discussion regarding a range of topics”). Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. _________/s/_____________ AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge Date: March 18, 2021 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
