Stoller v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company et al
Filing
38
ORDER denying 28 Motion to Stay; denying 7 Motion to Consolidate. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/1/11.(LAD)
1
WO
SC
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Bank of New York Mellon Trust)
)
Company, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Christopher Stoller,
No. CV 11-01105-GMS-JRI
ORDER
15
Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is confined in the Lake County Adult Corrections
16
Facility, in Waukegan, Illinois, filed a pro se Complaint asserting fraud claims and violations
17
of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a pro se motion to proceed in forma
18
pauperis, which was not on this District’s court-approved form. (Doc. 1.) In an Order filed
19
on July 25, 2011, this Court denied Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion with leave to file a
20
new in forma pauperis application within 30 days using this District’s required form. (Doc.
21
9.) On August 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, a notice of interlocutory
22
appeal concerning the denial of his in forma pauperis motion, and a motion for leave to
23
appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10, 11, 12.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave
24
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as not taken in good faith. (Doc. 16.) By separate
25
order, the Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff filed
26
a second interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of injunctive relief and he also filed a
27
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in that appeal and a motion for stay pending
28
1
appeal. (Doc. 21, 22.) In an Order filed on August 10, 2011, those motions were denied and
2
the Court certified that Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeals were not taken in good faith. (Doc.
3
27.)
4
On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed another motion to stay proceedings on the basis
5
that he had just learned of the death of his 29-year old son on August 6, 2011. (Doc. 28.)
6
In light of the procedural posture of this case, Plaintiff’s motion for stay will be denied.
7
Plaintiff has failed to submit this District’s approved form for a prisoner to seek leave to
8
proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $350.00 filing fee. As Plaintiff was previously
9
informed in the Court’s July 25, 2011 Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice
10
if he fails to comply with that Order within 30 days of its issuance.
11
The Court will also summarily deny Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this action with
12
Bank of New York Mellon v. Ribadeniera, No. CV11-0982-PHX-FJM. (Doc. 7.) That case
13
was remanded to state court on July 8, 2011.
14
Warnings
15
A.
Address Changes
16
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
17
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other
18
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
19
action.
20
B.
Copies
21
Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See
22
LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice
23
to Plaintiff.
24
C.
25
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
26
warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
27
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to
28
Possible Dismissal
-2-
1
comply with any order of the Court).
2
IT IS ORDERED:
3
(1)
Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is denied. (Doc. 7.)
4
(2)
Plaintiff’s motion for stay is denied. (Doc. 28.)
5
DATED this 1st day of September, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?