Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06585/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06585-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINA M. HUNTER EL,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS 

OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06585-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Regina M. Hunter El’s (“Hunter El”) motion under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b)(1) to withdraw the dismissal of her suit. See

Dkt. No. 17 (“Mot.”). Because Ms. Hunter El has failed to comply with multiple orders and 

deadlines of the Court and has not stated a cognizable claim, the Court DENIES the motion.

Ms. Hunter El, proceeding pro se, initially filed her complaint on October 26, 2018, 

alleging that Defendants the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California, Betsy 

DeVos, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, and the 

Office of Federal Student Aid violated her rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the 

Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Ms. Hunter El also filed an “affidavit 

of financial statement,” which Magistrate Judge Beeler construed as an application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 5. Judge Beeler ordered Ms. Hunter El to either comply 

with the requirements for filing in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee and gave her two weeks 

to do so. See id.

After Ms. Hunter El missed this deadline, Judge Beeler ordered her to show cause why the 

Case 4:18-cv-06585-HSG Document 18 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

case should not be dismissed. See Dkt. No. 7. A day after the order to show cause was due, Ms. 

Hunter El filed a motion for extension of time, see Dkt. No. 10, which was granted on December 

7, 2018, see Dkt. No. 11. Again, Judge Beeler ordered Ms. Hunter El to either explain why she 

should be excused from paying the civil-case filing fee or, if she were applying for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, why she should be excused from the requirement to disclose her 

income or assets. See Dkt. No. 11. Judge Beeler warned that failure to comply may result in her 

complaint being dismissed. See id. at 7.

After Ms. Hunter El failed to respond, Judge Beeler issued a report and recommendation 

to dismiss the complaint, finding that Ms. Hunter El had not paid the civil-case filing fee, had not 

filed a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, missed repeated court deadlines, and had 

failed to state a cognizable claim. See Dkt. No. 13 at 2. After no objections were filed, the Court 

adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the case on January 29, 2019. See Dkt. No. 

16.

Nearly six weeks later, Ms. Hunter El filed the instant motion for relief from the Court’s

dismissal order. See Mot. Ms. Hunter El claims that she filed an extension of time to respond to 

Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation, which she says was delivered to the Clerk of Court’s 

office on January 17, 2019. See id. at 3. However, even crediting Ms. Hunter El’s version of the 

events, there is no basis on which to provide Rule 60 relief. Ms. Hunter El’s request for extension 

of time to respond was 13 days overdue, even by her own telling. Moreover, in addition to 

repeatedly missing court deadlines, Ms. Hunter El has not paid the civil-case filing fee and has not 

properly applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Nor has she stated a cognizable claim in 

her complaint. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no basis upon which to grant relief from 

its order of dismissal and DENIES the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/8/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06585-HSG Document 18 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 2