(PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California

E.D. California

(PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California

DecidedAugust 13, 2025

Docket2:21-cv-01881

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California ((PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ANTHONY ARMSTRONG, No. 2:21-cv-01881-WBS-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PLUMAS COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate without counsel who brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. The court has dismissed the case without prejudice and entered judgment in 2022 after 19 plaintiff failed to amend his complaint to state a viable claim. ECF Nos. 27, 28. Plaintiff asks the 20 court to re-open the case, ECF No. 29, but provides no justification for doing so. “A dismissal 21 without prejudice terminates the action and concludes the rights of the parties in that particular 22 action.” United States v. California, 507 U.S. 756, 756 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 If plaintiff wishes to pursue the claim(s) he raised in this action, he must open a new case by 24 filing a new complaint. 25 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the court deny plaintiff’s February 21, 26 2025 motion to reopen (ECF No. 29). 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). ° or / <2 Pix 7 || Dated: August 12, 2025 Zot l bt TelACYl EDMUND F. BRENNAN 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ANTHONY ARMSTRONG, No. 2:21-cv-01881-WBS-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PLUMAS COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate without counsel who brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. The court has dismissed the case without prejudice and entered judgment in 2022 after 19 plaintiff failed to amend his complaint to state a viable claim. ECF Nos. 27, 28. Plaintiff asks the 20 court to re-open the case, ECF No. 29, but provides no justification for doing so. “A dismissal 21 without prejudice terminates the action and concludes the rights of the parties in that particular 22 action.” United States v. California, 507 U.S. 756, 756 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 If plaintiff wishes to pursue the claim(s) he raised in this action, he must open a new case by 24 filing a new complaint. 25 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the court deny plaintiff’s February 21, 26 2025 motion to reopen (ECF No. 29). 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). ° or / <2 Pix 7 || Dated: August 12, 2025 Zot l bt TelACYl EDMUND F. BRENNAN 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-armstrong-v-plumas-county-of-california-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack