Opinion
No. CV10-1522 PHX DGC.
July 1, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff pro se's action was terminated on March 18, 2011 for failure to serve the summons and complaint. Docs. 4, 6. On May 24, 2011, Plaintiff moved to reopen the case on grounds that Plaintiff has been waiting for a court ruling in another case, No. CIV 09-2606-PHX-SRB, in order to "amend, file and serve the parties in this litigation." Doc. 7 at 1. Plaintiff asserts that the "litigation process began to move along again in April of 2011 and, now the pro se plaintiff is prepared to proceed as necessary in this matter." Id. Plaintiff fails to explain how the absence of a ruling in another case in this district stood as a barrier to Plaintiff serving the summons and complaint in this case, why amendment was required prior to service of the original summons and complaint, and why the presence of the ruling in the other case now entitles the Plaintiff to reopen this case. The motion to reopen will therefore be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 7) is denied.
Court records also show that Plaintiff's complaint in the other case was dismissed with prejudice on June 7, 2011. No. CIV 09-2606-PHX-SRB, Docs. 50, 51.