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)

Download PDF
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?