Opinion
2:10-cv-00356-RCJ-RJJ
03-07-2013
Amy Gray, Plaintiff, v. City of Henderson et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff Amy Gray sued the City of Henderson, NV and multiple other Defendants in pro se for unclear alleged civil rights violations. The Complaint, which was approximately 295 pages in length, was a disorganized farrago of confusing and often unintelligible allegations. More importantly, no causes of action were enumerated therein, and it was impossible in many instances to distinguish those legal theories intended to be pressed as causes of action from those intended only to be a part of the argumentation.
In instances where the plaintiff appears in propia persona in a civil rights case, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, the court may not "supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, over the course of 32 months of pending litigation, the Court granted leave to amend the Complaint three times. The Order (ECF No. 109) entered on August 3, 2012, clearly stated Plaintiff must file within 20 days a Third Amended Complaint that sufficiently states claims against all named Defendants or the action would be dismissed with prejudice.
On October 2, 2012, Plaintiff had failed to file the Third Amended Complaint within the 20 days provided and the Court dismissed the Action with prejudice. (ECF No. 113). Plaintiff, thereafter, filed a Fourth Amended Complaint and seven motions, as well as an Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed timely within 30 days. (ECF No. 127). Since the Action has been dismissed with prejudice, the latest forthcoming motions by Plaintiff are moot.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Judge to Forward 4th Amended Complaint (ECF No. 117), the Emergency Motion For Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 118), the Motion for Stratus (ECF No. 119), the Motion to Reconsider Order (ECF No. 120), the Motion for Transcript Fees to be Waived (ECF No. 124), the Motion for Issuance of Summons (ECF No. 125), the Motion to Report Stalking (ECF No. 126) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall accept no further filings in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge