Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01179/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 When she commenced this action, plaintiff referred to herself as “Eve

Oro Gutte.” Since then plaintiff has used several variations of that name,

including different spellings of her first name. For the sake of uniformity, the

court will continue to refer to plaintiff as Eve Oro Gutte.

2 A copy of that order is attached hereto for ease of reference.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eve Oro Gutte1, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 04-1179 PCT RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Antonio Chavez Hernandez, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Currently pending before the court is motion by plaintiff

pro se Eve Oro Gutte requesting that this court “re-open” this

case because her “civil rights have been adversely affected.” 

Mot. (doc. 21) at 1. On April 27, 2005, this court ordered

that plaintiff had until November 14, 2005, at the latest, to

file a second amended complaint. Doc. 16 at 3.2 This court

“further ordered that failure to comply [there]with . . . may

Case 3:04-cv-01179-RCB Document 22 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without

prejudice.” Id. Lastly, the court ordered the Clerk of the

Court to provide plaintiff with a copy of “‘Filing a

Complaint In Your Own Behalf[,]’” and according to the docket

sheet, that was done. Id.

Nearly two and a half years later, when plaintiff failed

to comply with that earlier order, on September 13, 2007, in

a one sentence order, this court directed the Clerk of the

Court to dismiss this present action without prejudice. Doc.

18. That same date, judgment was entered dismissing the

“complaint and action without prejudice.” Doc. 19. The

docket sheet in this action indicates that on September 13,

2007, copies of that prior order and judgment were mailed to

plaintiff Gutte at the address provided at her last known

address. Quite recently, on March 18, 2010, the Clerk’s

Office again mailed plaintiff Gutte copies of this order and

judgment at the address provided on this pending motion. 

There are many reasons for denying the pending motion to

“re-open.” The court will briefly list the three most

glaring reasons. First, there is no case to “re-open” as this

case was dismissed without prejudice, as noted above, and

plaintiff never filed a second amended complaint as the court

required. Second, as the court explained in its April 27,

2005 order that complaint did not allege a statutory basis

for this court’s jurisdiction. In other words, plaintiff did

not rely upon any statute authorizing this court to consider

her case. Third, even without these deficiencies, there is

no basis for plaintiff’s motion to “re-open” this case

Case 3:04-cv-01179-RCB Document 22 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

because the six named defendants on this motion were not

among the numerous defendants in the original complaint. 

Re-opening the present case is simply not a form of relief

which is available to plaintiff Eve Oro Gutte.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion to Reopen Case” by Eve Oro

Gutte is DENIED.

Dates this 24th day of March, 2010

Copies to plaintiff pro se and counsel of record

Case 3:04-cv-01179-RCB Document 22 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3