Opinion
21-cv-03224-HSG
09-02-2021
BEKAH DUBOIS, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY BOSKOVICH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RESCINDING DISMISSAL
RE: DKT. NO. 16
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Bekah Dubois filed this action pro se on April 30, 2021. See Dkt. No. 1. On May 7, 2021, Judge Kim issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but placed a hold on service of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because the complaint failed to establish that the Court had jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 5. Judge Kim explained the deficiencies in the complaint and provided Plaintiff with another opportunity to amend. Having reviewed the amended complaint, Judge Kim again found that Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that that the $75,000 amount in controversy was met, as required for the Court to have diversity jurisdiction over this case. See Dkt. No. 10. Accordingly, on July 22, 2021, Judge Kim recommended dismissing this case with prejudice. See Id. at 3. The report and recommendation indicated that Plaintiff could file any objections within fourteen days. See id.
This case was previously assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, and was reassigned to this Court on July 23, 2021. See Dkt. No. 14.
After the time for objections had passed, this Court adopted Judge Kim's report and recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 16. The next day, the Court received Plaintiff's objection to the report and recommendation. See Dkt. No. 17. In it, Plaintiff suggested that she could cure the deficiencies in her complaint and requested an additional 30 days to file a second amended complaint. Id.
Having considered Plaintiffs objection, the Court RESCINDS the dismissal and directs the Clerk to reopen this case. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff further DIRECTS Plaintiff to file her second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff should ensure that she explains how this case meets the $75,000 amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. It is not enough for Plaintiff to say that she is entitled to $259,209.11 and $800,000 in damages for each of her claims. She must explain in detail how she calculated these figures and why she believes that she is legally entitled to these damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.