Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00485/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00485-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sammye A. Richardson,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Caswell Bell and Hillison, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-05-485-TUC-DCB

ORDER

On August 3, 2005, Plaintiff filed this action in federal court. Her Motion for Leave

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was granted by the Court on August 17, 2005. On October 28,

2005, this Court entered an Order that stated the following:

Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have

thirty (30) days from the filing date of this Order to file an amended

complaint, clearly and concisely stating the claims for relief, and properly

establishing this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See, Rule 8(a),

Fed.R.Civ.P. The amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its

entirety on a Court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the

original complaint by reference. Any amended complaint submitted by

Plaintiff should be clearly designated as an amended complaint on the face of

the document. Plaintiff should take notice that if she fails to timely file an

amended complaint, the complaint and this action will be dismissed with

prejudice, without further notice to Plaintiff. Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Since that Order was entered by the Court, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Reconsideration that was virtually incomprehensible and certainly did not, in and of itself,

resolve the problem specifically addressed by the Court's Order dated October 28, 2005.

That being the case, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 9, 2005. 

Since that date, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions, but none of them are coherent

and none of them even attempt to specifically resolve the jurisdiction problem that resulted

Case 4:05-cv-00485-DCB Document 59 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
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

"Sanction Against Tanis Duncan in Cash and by Expunging from

Record Duncan's Flawed Motion for Dismissal of 05-485 and Attached

Exhibit as an Attempt to Sneak Nonexistent Facts in Complete Disregard

of the Underlying Procedural; Administrative Facts, Fact Findings and

Legal Grounds through the Continual Use and Abuse of a State Court

Default Judgment Despite Facts not in Evidence and After Repeated

Failure to Remove such Judgment Despite Superior Information that State

Court Non Served said Judgment was Declared Moot by Duncan Herself"

(Doc. No. 44); "Offer of Proof From Court Why Trial by Jury Has Not

Been Made Part of Court Record Pursuant to Rights under U.S.

Constitution Seventh Amendment" (Doc. No. 45); and, "Open Letter to

Chief Judge Arizona District Court to Report Violation by Judge Bury's

Courtroom Deputy Ken? and Other Administrative Matters"(Doc. No. 54).

2

CV-02-495-TUC-WDB, CV-03-549-TUC-FRZ, CV-04-334-TUC-FRZ, CV-04-

542-TUC-CKJ, CV-99-017-TUC-JMR.

2

in the original dismissal of the action. The motions filed are considered by this Court to be

needlessly abrasive and threatening1

. None of them legitimately attempt to comply with the

Court's Order of October 28, 2005. Plaintiff is not an inexperienced litigant and was clearly

offered the opportunity to amend pursuant to Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th

Cir. 1992).2

 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ.P. 41(b).

DATED this 13th day of December, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-00485-DCB Document 59 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2