Guillen v. Owens et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 4/5/10.(LSP)

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
JDDL

WO

SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karl Louis Guillen, Plaintiff, vs. Quincy Owens, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 10-0226-PHX-MHM (LOA) ORDER

Plaintiff Karl Louis Guillen, who is confined in the Special Management Unit (SMU) I of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, in Florence, Arizona, commenced this action by filing a motion for leave to exceed the page limit in his pro se civil rights Complaint, which is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a motion to defer filing fees until September 15, 2010; and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1, 3, 4, 5.) The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to exceed the page limit and ordered the Complaint filed. (Doc.# 8.) The Court denied the motion to defer filing fees and denied as incomplete his in forma pauperis application with leave to pay the filing fee or to file a properly complete in forma pauperis application within 30 days. (Id.) Shortly before the filing of that Order, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite this case. (Doc.# 7.) The Court will deny that motion where Plaintiff has not yet paid the filing fee or filed a properly complete in forma pauperis application. / / /

28

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
JDDL

Warnings A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. B. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff. C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the March 26, 2010 Order, doc.# 8), and these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. 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 Plaintiff's motion to expedite is denied. (Doc.# 7.) DATED this 5th day of April, 2010.

28

-2-