Warren v. Smith et al

Filing 8

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion to extend deadlines is denied (Doc. 7 .) Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 9/4/2012.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Richard Eugene Warren,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

Dennis Smith, et al.,

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 12-0552-PHX-RCB (MHB)
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Richard Eugene Warren, who was then confined in the Federal Correctional

17

Institution in Phoenix, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six

18

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff did

19

not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma

20

Pauperis. In an Order filed on April 20, 2012, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days in which to

21

pay the fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 4.) Shortly

22

before that Order issued, Plaintiff paid $5.00, which is the filing fee for a habeas action.

23

(Doc. 3.) On June 7, 2012, the action was dismissed and judgment entered because Plaintiff

24

had failed to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or submit an Application to Proceed In Forma

25

Pauperis (Non-Habeas). (Doc. 5.) On June 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of

26

address reflecting that he had been transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre

27

Haute, Indiana. (Doc. 6.) The same day, he filed a motion to extend time to comply with any

28

1

order that may have been issued. (Doc. 7.) The motion was dated by Plaintiff on June 8,

2

2012. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time will be denied. The Court issued its Order

4

giving Plaintiff 30 days in which to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or to file an Application

5

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas) on April 20, 2012. A copy of that Order mailed

6

to Plaintiff on April 20, 2012 was not returned as undeliverable. The motion filed by

7

Plaintiff indicates that he was transferred in early June, 2012, after the 30 day period had

8

expired. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time will be denied.

9
10

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend deadlines is denied. (Doc. 7.)
DATED this 4th day of September, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-