Le v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for a 30-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint is granted to the extent stated below. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff is granted an additional 30 days in which to file a first amended complaint in compliance with the May 31, 2011 Order, doc. 3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the extension granted herein, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 6/21/11. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
Hai Van Le,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

No. CV 11-0744-PHX-RCB-ECV
ORDER

18

Plaintiff Hai Van Le, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis,

19

in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

20

paid the $350.00 filing fee. In an Order filed on May 31, 2011, the Court dismissed the

21

Complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. (Doc. 3.) On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed

22

a motion for a 30-day extension of time. (Doc. 4.) Although Plaintiff fails to state a reason

23

for seeking the extension, the Court will grant his motion.

24

Warnings

25
26

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

27

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

28
JDDL-K

A.

Address Changes

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

1

action.

2

B

Copies

3

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

4

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

5

to Plaintiff.

6

C.

Possible “Strike”

7

Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails

8

to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in the May 31, 2011

9

Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal

11

a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

12

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

13

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

14

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

15

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

16

D.

17

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

18

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

19

1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the

20

Court).

21

IT IS ORDERED:

22
23
24
25
26

(1)

Possible Dismissal

Plaintiff’s motion for a 30-day extension of time to file a first amended

complaint is granted to the extent stated below. (Doc. 4.)
(2)

Plaintiff is granted an additional 30 days in which to file a first amended

complaint in compliance with the May 31, 2011 Order, doc. 3.
(3)

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the extension granted

27
28
JDDL-K

herein, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this
action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
-2-

1
2

§ 1915(g).
DATED this 21st day of June, 2011.

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
JDDL-K

-3-