Riess v. Arpaio et al

Filing 17

ORDER that Plaintiff's 16 motion to have payments deducted from his inmate account at Eloy Detention Center is denied. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 10/14/11.(ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

RICHARD STEVEN RIESS,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-1331-PHX-RCB (ECV)
ORDER

14
15

Plaintiff Richard Steven Riess, who was then confined in the Durango Jail in Phoenix,

16

Arizona, filed a pro se motion for leave to exceed the page limit for his lodged Complaint,

17

which he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1, 2.) In an Order filed July 27, 2010,

18

the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion with leave to file a complaint that substantially complied

19

with the Instructions within 30 days. (Doc. 7.) In an Order filed July 27, 2010, Plaintiff was

20

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to file a complaint on the court-approved

21

form in compliance with the Instructions within 30 days. (Id.) On September 9, 2010, this

22

action was dismissed after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and judgment was

23

entered. (Doc. 12.)

24

On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to have payments deducted from his

25

inmate account at the Eloy Detention Center, in Eloy, Arizona, where he was then held.

26

(Doc. 16.) This action has been closed for more than a year and Plaintiff’s motion was filed

27

more six months after judgment was entered. Moreover, Plaintiff has since been removed

28

1

to Canada. See Riess v. Davis, No. CV11-0523-PHX-SRB, doc. 35. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

2

motion will be denied as moot.

3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to have payments deducted from his inmate

4

account at Eloy Detention Center is denied. (Doc. 16.)

5

DATED this 14th day of October, 2011.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-