Nails v. Beach, No. 3:2015cv01032 - Document 28 (D. Or. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's "Motion to Reopen" 27 is denied. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed on 5/3/2016 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jtj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nails v. Beach Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ANGELA NAILS, Plaintiff, No. 3:15-cv-1032-JE v. OPINION & ORDER ERIC BEACH, Defendant. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Plaintiff brings this “Motion to Reopen” in response to the Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. On September 17, 2015, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Jelderks’ Findings and Recommendation (F&R) dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint curing the defects described in the F&R. Plaintiff was warned that if she failed to file such an amended complaint, the case would be dismissed with prejudice. On November 5, 2015, the Court entered the following order: 1 – OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Because Plaintiff did not receive copies of the Order when originally issued because the Court did not have her current address at the time of issuance, Plaintiff is granted an extension until December 7, 2015 to file her Amended Complaint, if she so chooses. If Plaintiff fails to file such an amended complaint, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. ECF 15. On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint; however, the amended complaint was still deficient and was therefore dismissed with prejudice. The entirety of Plaintiff’s current motion is as follows: “I did not receive order to amend my complaint--request to reopen.” Pl. Mot. Reopen, ECF 27. The fact that Plaintiff filed an amended complaint strongly suggests that, after the Court sent its order to Plaintiff’s current mailing address, Plaintiff received the order dismissing her complaint and allowing her leave to amend. Even if Plaintiff did not receive the order, her amended complaint was nevertheless accepted and evaluated by the Court; the complaint failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was therefore properly dismissed. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reopen” [27] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ____________ day of __________________________ , 2016. ________________________________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge 2 – OPINION & ORDER
]]>
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.
