Sharp v. Kendall et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 3 Plaintiff's deficient Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Amended Complaint 4 and this action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court's Order filed 2/25/10 5 . The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 5/17/10.(TLJ)

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

RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Lee Sharp, Plaintiff, vs. Dennis Kendall, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 10-301-PHX-MHM (MHB) ORDER

On February 10. 2010, Plaintiff David Lee Sharp, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #1). Plaintiff did not immediately pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On February 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) and an Amended Complaint (Doc. #4).1 By Order filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. #5), the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days from the filing date of the Order to pay the fee or file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement from the Central Office of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC).

Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was deficient because it did not include a certified six-month trust account statement.

1

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

I.

Failure to Comply with Court Order To date, over two months after the filing date of the Court's February 25, 2010 Order

(Doc. #5), Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's Order by either paying the $350.00 filing fee or filing a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust fund account statement from the ADOC's Central Office. II. Dismissal of Complaint and Action In the Court's February 25, 2010 Order, the Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with every provision of the Order, including the 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). Accordingly, the Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) and this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court's Order filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. #5). In so doing, the Court will also deny Plaintiff's deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3), which was filed prior to the filing of the Court's February 25, 2010 Order. IT IS ORDERED: (1) denied. (2) The Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) and this action are dismissed without Plaintiff's deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) is

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court's Order filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. #5). (3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2010.

-2-