Medley v. Arizona, State of

Filing 12

ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court's November 5, 2010 Order to Show Cause; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 12/13/10. (ESL)

--DKD Medley v. Arizona, State of Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO MDR IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Laura L. Medley, Plaintiff, vs. State of Arizona, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-1971-PHX-MHM (DKD) ORDER On September 13, 2010, Plaintiff Laura L. Medley, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint, a "Notice of Constitutional Question," and a "Motion for a Court Order Requiring A.D.O.C. to Provide Plaintiff with Certificate of Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant's Trust Account and Certified Inmate Bank Statement." In an October 6, 2010 Order, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a November 5, 2010 Order to Show Cause, the Court noted that Plaintiff appeared to have at least "three strikes" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to show cause why the dismissals of her prior lawsuits should not prevent her from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. The Court specifically warned Plaintiff: If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that 1915(g) does not preclude her in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed will be Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 denied, and the Complaint and this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, she must prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when she files her action. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. Instead, she filed a First Amended Complaint that raised an issue entirely unrelated to the issue raised in her original Complaint.1 The Court will dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court's November 5th Order to Show Cause. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court's November 5, 2010 Order to Show Cause; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED this 13th day of December, 2010. Plaintiff's allegation in her original Complaint related to earned release credits. Her allegation in her First Amended Complaint is that she has not received a second orthopedic consultation because Defendant Ryan has not completely replaced medical speciality service contracts that were terminated in November 2009. -2- 1