Hobby v. United States Government ( 2021 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3/18/2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia
GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-3842 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed what is construed to be a motion under Rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. # 6 (“Motion in Response to Dismissal and a
Request for Reinstatement”). She seeks relief from the order entered on January 19, 2021, which
dismissed this action for insufficient pleading under Rule 8. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 3].
In its discretion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for
any one of six enumerated reasons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). The instant motion and its
assorted attachments provide no discernible grounds to merit reopening this case. See Thomas v.
Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (a party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) must offer “a
hint of a suggestion” that she might prevail if the case is reopened) (quoting Marino v. DEA, 685
F.3d 1076, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). Plaintiff’s confusing attempts to amend the complaint, see
generally attachments, do not cure the pleading defects. See Mem. Op. at 2 ( noting that “[i]nstead
of differentiating her intended claims and succinctly identifying her allegations and entitlement to
relief, plaintiff presents a rambling and disorganized discussion regarding a range of topics”).
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. A separate order accompanies this memorandum
opinion.
_________/s/_____________
AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge
Date: March 18, 2021