Mara v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 9

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's May 9, 2012 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) 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. (3) Plaintiff's April 17, 2012 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/2/12.(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
14

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

No. CV 12-086-PHX-DGC (ECV)
ORDER

15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new, deficient Application to Proceed. In an

21

April 10, 2012 Order, the Court denied the new Application to Proceed, and gave Plaintiff

22

30 days to pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed.

23

On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7). On

24

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

25

(Doc. 8).

26

In both the February 22, 2012 and April 10, 2012 Orders, the Court explained that

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

trust account statement.

4

The Court has twice provided Plaintiff with instructions for filing a proper Application

5

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has also filed thirteen other lawsuits with this Court,

6

each with at least one deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In each of those

7

cases, the Court has also provided Plaintiff with instructions for filing an Application to

8

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has received 26 Orders from this Court with

9

instructions for complying with the in forma pauperis statute. Plaintiff appears unwilling or

10

unable to do so.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

for Appointment of Counsel.

16

IT IS ORDERED:

17
18
19
20

(1)

Plaintiff’s May 9, 2012 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) 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.

21

(3)

22

denied as moot.

23

Plaintiff’s April 17, 2012 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) is

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2012.

24
25
26
27
28
-2-