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)

Download PDF
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-

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?