Mara v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order. The Clerk must close the case and enter judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/1/12.(LSP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,)
No. CV 12-48-PHX-DGC (ECV)
Plaintiff Rory Mara, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation of America-
Saguaro Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 31, 2012
Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed with leave to re-file.
On January 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4).
On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new, deficient Application to Proceed (Doc. 6). In
an April 10, 2012 Order, the Court denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, denied
the new Application to Proceed, and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing fee or file a
complete Application to Proceed.
On April 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 8).
On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third, deficient, Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
In both the January 31, 2012 and April 10, 2012 Orders, the Court explained that
pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must
include a certified trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing of the
Plaintiff’s third Application to Proceed does not include a certified six-month trust
account statement. In this case, the Court has twice provided Plaintiff with instructions for
filing a proper Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has also filed thirteen
other lawsuits with this Court, each with at least one deficient Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. In each of those cases, the Court has also provided Plaintiff with
instructions for filing an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has received
26 Orders from this Court with instructions for complying with the in forma pauperis statute.
Plaintiff appears unwilling or unable to do so.
Plaintiff was also explicitly warned in each of the Court’s Orders that failure to
comply with a Court order would result in dismissal of the action. The Court will dismiss
this action, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a Court order. See Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court will deny as moot the Motion
for Appointment of Counsel.
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s May 9, 2012 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is
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.
denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s April 17, 2012 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 8) is
DATED this 1st day of June, 2012.
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?