Le v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 7

ORDER that Plaintiff's June 24, 2011 motion for extension of time to file a first amended complaint is denied as moot. (Doc. 6.) Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 6/29/11.(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
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.) Despite Plaintiff’s failure to provide a

23

reason for seeking the extension, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which

24

to file an amended complaint in an Order filed on June 22, 2011. (Doc. 5.) On June 24,

25

2011, Plaintiff filed another motion requesting a 30 days extension of time to file an amended

26

complaint. (Doc. 6.) It appears that this motion may have been intended merely as a copy

27

or correction of the first motion. In any event, this motion was received before Plaintiff

28
JDDL-K

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

received the Court’s last Order. Because the Court already granted Plaintiff’s first motion

1

for an extension of time, this duplicate motion will be denied. If Plaintiff seeks any further

2

extensions, he should indicate the specific reasons for seeking such extension.

3

Warnings

4

A.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

action.

9

B

Address Changes

Copies

10

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

11

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

12

to Plaintiff.

13

C.

Possible “Strike”

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

D.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

Court).

28
JDDL-K

Possible Dismissal

Accordingly,
-2-

1
2
3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s June 24, 2011 motion for extension of time to file
a first amended complaint is denied as moot. (Doc. 6.)
DATED this 29th day of June, 2011.

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-