FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION – 1 

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ANGELA NAILS, ) Civil No.: 3:15-cv-1032-JE 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND 

 ) RECOMMENDATION 

 v. ) 

 ) 

ERIC BEACH, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________ ) 

 Angela Nails 

 15406 Bellaire Ave. 

 Apt. M 

 Grandview, MO 64030 

 Plaintiff Pro Se 

JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge: 

 Plaintiff Angela Nails brings this action against Defendant Eric Beach. With the filing of 

her original complaint, Plaintiff also applied to proceed in forma pauperis and moved for the 

appointment of pro bono counsel. 

 In a Findings and Recommendation and Order dated August 18, 2015, I granted 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, denied her motion for appointment of counsel and 

recommended that Plaintiff’s claim be dismissed without prejudice and without service of 

Case 3:15-cv-01032-JE Document 18 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION – 2 

process on the basis that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. #9. 

That recommendation was adopted by the Honorable Marco Hernandez in an Order dated 

September 17, 2015. Dkt. #13. Judge Hernandez granted Plaintiff 30 days in which to file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies described in the Findings and Recommendation. 

Because Plaintiff did not have a current address on file she did not receive copies of Judge 

Hernandez’s Order when it was originally issued. She was, therefore, granted an extension of 

time to file her amended complaint by Order dated November 5, 2015. Plaintiff then timely filed 

her amended complaint. 

Discussion 

 Plaintiff’s original complaint was one of five that Plaintiff filed simultaneously in this 

Court. In her original complaint she appeared to allege that Defendant is an attorney who was 

representing a party adverse to Plaintiff in a case in the Washington County Circuit Court for the 

State of Oregon. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to file an answer or respond to a Default 

Judgment on behalf of his client. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant then filed a “motion to 

dismiss the default judgment.” Plaintiff sought $175,000 in damages. 

 In my previous Findings and Recommendation, I explained that if Plaintiff were to file an 

amended complaint she must allege sufficient facts to satisfy the federal pleading standard set 

out by the federal rules of civil procedure and the Iqbal and Twombly cases. Plaintiff was also 

directed to set out a basis for this court’s jurisdiction that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 

the applicable jurisdictional statutes. Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to fulfill either of these 

requirements. 

Case 3:15-cv-01032-JE Document 18 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION – 3 

 The allegations in Plaintiff’s amended complaint are, if anything, more vague and 

incomprehensible than those contained in her original complaint. The amended complaint 

comprises two brief paragraphs that provide even less of a basis for this court to exercise 

jurisdiction and fail to even approach alleging “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also, 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(specifically applying Twombly analysis beyond the 

context of the Sherman Act). Furthermore, because an “amended pleading supersedes the 

original[,]”Hal-Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th 

Cir.1990), Plaintiff’s amended complaint cannot rely on or be supplemented by the allegations of 

her original complaint. 

 The deficiencies of Plaintiff’s original complaint were carefully set out and Plaintiff was 

given leave to amend. However, the Court’s Order indicated that Plaintiff’s failure to cure the 

deficiencies described would result in this case being dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint fails to comply with the Court’s directive and should, therefore, be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

Conclusion 

 This action should be DISMISSED without service of process. A judgment should be 

entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 

Scheduling Order

 This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, 

if any, are due February 16, 2016. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and 

Case 3:15-cv-01032-JE Document 18 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION – 4 

Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. 

 If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with 

a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the 

Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

 DATED this 27th day of January, 2016. 

 /s/ John Jelderks 

 John Jelderks 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01032-JE Document 18 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 4