Blades v. City of Mesa Housing Authority

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Virginia Blades, ) No. CV-20-01841-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) City of Mesa Housing Authority, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Virginia Blades’ Motion for an Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7) Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) commencing this action on September 21, 2020 and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 4) On October 9, 2020, the Court issued an order advising Plaintiff that the Complaint failed to satisfy the federal pleading requirements.

20 (Doc. 5) The Complaint was therefore dismissed, and Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to file an amended complaint by November 9, 2020. (Doc. 5) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline and the case was dismissed. (Doc. 6) 23 Because this case is closed and Plaintiff has failed to identify any authority which permits her to file this document, it will be denied. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to set aside the judgment under Rule 59(e), the Court may only do so if the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. V. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff argues | that she had computer and printer issues the past two days (though she was given a monthlong extension), that she is not as efficient as an attorney, and that she is elderly and has health issues. (Doc. 7) Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e).

5 Therefore, 6 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is denied.

8 Dated this 13th day of November, 2020. ll United States District kadge