Curry v. Clayton Cnty. Police Dep't

Curry v. Clayton Cnty. Police Dep't

Opinion

OPINION & ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Debra Curry sued Defendants alleging she was arrested without cause and subjected to excessive force. (Dkts. 1-1; 4.) This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for leave/reinstate for excusable neglect/ineffective counsel and third amended complaint and motion to leave to amend and reopen for failure to submit previous submission. (Dkts. 20; 21.) The Court construes both motions as seeking the same relief—the reopening of her prior case. The Court denies that relief.

I. Background¹

Plaintiff sued in May 2018, claiming she was arrested without cause and subjected to excessive force. (Dkt. 1.) In March 2020, the Court completed a frivolity review of her complaint. (Dkt. 10.) The Court noted Plaintiff had filed a nearly identical complaint before Judge Duffey in April 2017. (Id. at 2.) Judge Duffey found that complaint to be a shotgun pleading. The Court agreed and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint [*2]  by April 24, 2020. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would lead to dismissal of her claims. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and on April 30, 2020, the Court dismissed her complaint. (Dkt. 12.)

Then, in July 2020, Plaintiff moved to open the case and file an amended complaint—essentially, she wanted more time to do what the Court ordered her to do by April 24, 2020. (Dkt. 14.) She also stated her attorney was in poor health, leading to a delay of her receiving court documents, presumably the Court's order for her to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff stated she would file an amended complaint by August 20, 2020. Plaintiff, however, did not file an amended complaint by August 20. Rather, on August 21, she filed a second motion seeking to reopen the case, again seeking more time to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 15.) Before ruling on that motion, on August 27, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. 16.) On October 26, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions to reinstate the case and file an amended complaint, reasoning that the amended complaint Plaintiff filed was nearly identical to the complaint Judge Duffy rejected as a shotgun complaint and [*3]  to the complaint the Court rejected as a shotgun complaint. (Dkt. 17.) The Court found that Plaintiff could not file a complaint in August with the same deficiencies the Court rejected in April.

Plaintiff then moved to vacate the Court's October 26 order and transfer the case to state court. (Dkt. 18.) On June 14, 2021, the Court denied that motion because Plaintiff could not satisfy the standard of either Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment or order) and the Court lacked the authority to transfer Plaintiff's case to a state court.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.