Opinion ID: 4316617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Order Striking Plaintiff’s Complaint

Text: Plaintiff argues that the district court abused its discretion in striking her complaint because the complaint’s allegations stated a prima facie case of Title IX retaliation. But the adequacy of the complaint was not the reason the district court struck it. The district court indicated that it struck the complaint because Plaintiff had filed it in a closed action in which the district court lacked jurisdiction over the only live issue. The problem with the district court’s ruling is that Plaintiff never filed her new complaint alleging a Title IX claim in the docket of the closed original action. As noted, Plaintiff had earlier moved to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice her Title IX claim in the original action. That motion was granted, meaning that Plaintiff was free to refile her claim in a new complaint. She did so. Our review of the district court record does not indicate that Plaintiff filed her complaint in the closed docket of the original action. As any litigant filing a new action would, she simply filed a complaint showing no case number, with the number to be filled in by the Clerk. She also filed an unnumbered civil cover sheet indicating in the appropriate space that the closed case was related to her new action, not that it was the same action. Finally, she filed an affidavit of indigency requesting that she be allowed to proceed without prepaying fees or costs—another indication that she 5 Case: 17-13644 Date Filed: 09/28/2018 Page: 6 of 7 was filing a new action. Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not actually file her complaint in a closed docket, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in striking Plaintiff’s present complaint. On remand, Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed on her new complaint.2