Mara v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying as moot the 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order. The Clerk of Court must close the case and enter judgment. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/4/12.(LAD)

1
2

KM

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,)
)
)
Defendants.
)
Rory Mara,

No. CV 12-46-PHX-DGC (ECV)
ORDER

14
15

Plaintiff Rory Mara, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation of America-

16

Saguaro Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1983 and an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 31, 2012

18

Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed with leave to re-file.

19

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4).

20

On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new, deficient Application to Proceed (Doc. 6). In

21

an April 10, 2012 Order, the Court denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, denied

22

the new Application to Proceed, and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing fee or file a

23

complete Application to Proceed.

24

On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 8).

25

On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third, deficient, Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

26

(Doc. 9).

27
28

1

In both the January 31, 2012 and April 10, 2012 Orders, the Court explained that

2

pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must

3

include a certified trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing of the

4

Complaint.

5

Plaintiff’s third Application to Proceed does not include a certified six-month trust

6

account statement. In this case, the Court has twice provided Plaintiff with instructions for

7

filing a proper Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has also filed thirteen

8

other lawsuits with this Court, each with at least one deficient Application to Proceed In

9

Forma Pauperis. In each of those cases, the Court has also provided Plaintiff with

10

instructions for filing an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has received

11

26 Orders from this Court with instructions for complying with the in forma pauperis statute.

12

Plaintiff appears unwilling or unable to do so.

13

Plaintiff was also explicitly warned in each of the Court’s Orders that failure to

14

comply with a Court order would result in dismissal of the action. The Court will dismiss

15

this action, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a Court order. See Ferdik v.

16

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court will deny as moot the Motion

17

for Appointment of Counsel.

18

IT IS ORDERED:

19
20
21
22

(1)

Plaintiff’s May 9, 2012 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is

denied.
(2)

This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court

order. The Clerk of Court must close the case and enter judgment.

23

(3)

24

denied as moot.

25

Plaintiff’s April 26, 2012 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 8) is

DATED this 4th day of June, 2012.

26
27
28
-2-