Ho v. Griego et al

Filing 44

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Make Copies of New Documents (Doc. 27) is denied. (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Request Information from Judge Snow (Doc. 26) is denied. (3) Plaintiff's Motions Under R ule 56(f) to Obtain Declarations (Docs. 30, 31, and 32) are denied. (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Apply Rule 59(e) and Rule 56(f) (Doc. 33) is denied.(5) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) isdenied. (6) Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 36) is denied. (7) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 43) isdenied. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/1/11.(LAD)

1

WO

KM

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Steven Ho,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Benjamin Griego, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-904-PHX-GMS (MEA)
ORDER

14
15

On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff Steven Ho, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation

16

of America-Saguaro Correctional Center (CCA-SCC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May

18

18, 2011 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint

19

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an

20

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

21

On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On June 23, 2011,

22

Plaintiff filed another “First Amended Complaint,” which the Court construed as a Second

23

Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). On July 6, 2011, the Court dismissed the Second Amended

24

Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim (Doc. 14), and the Clerk of Court

25

entered Judgment (Doc. 15). On August 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the

26

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 38).

27

Pending before the Court are the following Motions:

28

(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Make Copies of New Documents

1

(Doc. 27);

2

(2)

Motion to Request Information from Judge Snow (Doc. 26);

3

(3)

Motions Under Rule 56(f) to Obtain Declarations (Docs. 30, 31, and 32);

4

(4)

Motion to Apply Rule 59(e) and Rule 56(f) (Doc. 33);

5

(5)

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 35);

6

(6)

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 36); and

7

(7)

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 43).

8

Plaintiff has also filed numerous “Declarations.”

9

This case has been dismissed and Plaintiff’s Motions are therefore moot. To the

10

extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal, the Court has already

11

considered and denied, in an August 4, 2011 Order, Plaintiff’s previous request for

12

reconsideration.

13

IT IS ORDERED:

14

(1)

15

(Doc. 27) is denied.

16
17

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Make Copies of New Documents

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Information from Judge Snow (Doc. 26) is

denied.

18

(3)

19

32) are denied.

20

(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Apply Rule 59(e) and Rule 56(f) (Doc. 33) is denied.

21

(5)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) is

22

Plaintiff’s Motions Under Rule 56(f) to Obtain Declarations (Docs. 30, 31, and

denied.

23

(6)

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 36) is denied.

...
-2-

1
2
3

(7)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 43) is

denied.
DATED this 1st day of September, 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
-3-