Ho v. Griego et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a Court Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/18/10.(TLJ)

Download PDF
--MEA Ho v. Griego et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION KM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Steven Ho, Plaintiff, vs. Ben Griego, et al., Defendants. I. Procedural History On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff Steven Ho, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation of America's Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a September 9, 2010 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and certified six-month trust account statement. On September 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second, incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 7, 2010 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed because Plaintiff did not sign the "Consent to Collection of Fees from Trust Account" section and Plaintiff did not submit a certified six-month trust account statement. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-1864-PHX-GMS (MEA) ORDER 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 On October 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a third incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On October 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a new Application to Proceed. In an October 20, 2010 Order, the Court denied the deficient third Application to Proceed because Plaintiff again did not sign the "Consent to Collection of Fees from Trust Account" section and Plaintiff did not submit a certified six-month trust account statement. The Court granted the Motion for Extension of Time and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On October 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a fourth, incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 10). Like its predecessors, it is deficient. II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Fails to Comply With Statute Plaintiff's current Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 10) is on the current, court-approved form. However, as with Plaintiff's three previous Applications, Plaintiff still has not submitted a certified six-month trust account statement. In light of this deficiency, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed. Because Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with the Court's Orders that he submit a complete, certified Application to Proceed and a certified account statement, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a Court Order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating a district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court). IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's October 29, 2010 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 10) is denied. .... .... .... -2- 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 (2) This action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a Court Order; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED this 18th day of November, 2010. -3-

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?