Hughes v. United States of America et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 11 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 12 Motion to Appoint Special Advocate. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/23/09.(DMT, )

Download PDF
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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mark Edward Hughes, Plaintiff, vs. United States of America; et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 08-2225-PHX-JAT ORDER On December 12, 2008, this Court screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and found the complaint did not meet the pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by January 23, 2009, or his case would be dismissed pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (failure to comply with a court order). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and, accordingly, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice on February 6, 2009. In June 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 11) and a Motion to Appoint Special Advocate (Doc. # 12). Plaintiff did not move for reconsideration of the Court's February 6 Order dismissing Plaintiff's action. Rather, Plaintiff simply re-filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. This case having been dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court's February 6 Order, and the Clerk of the Court having already closed this case, Accordingly, 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 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 11) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Special Advocate (Doc. # 12) is denied as moot. DATED this 23rd day of September, 2009. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?