Ho v. Griego et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying as moot 45 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must not file any further documents in this closed case. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/12/11.(MAP)

Download PDF
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 with leave to amend. 20 On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On June 23, 2011, 21 Plaintiff filed another “First Amended Complaint,” which the Court construed as a Second 22 Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). On July 6, 2011, the Court dismissed the Second Amended 23 Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim (Doc. 14), and the Clerk of Court 24 entered Judgment (Doc. 15). On August 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 25 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 38). 26 On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 27 (Doc. 45). Plaintiff has already been granted in forma pauperis status and this case is now 28 dismissed. The Court will therefore deny the Application to Proceed as moot. 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s September 7, 2011 Application to Proceed In 2 Forma Pauperis (Doc. 45) is denied as moot. Plaintiff must not file any further documents 3 in this closed case. 4 DATED this 12th day of October, 2011. 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-

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?