Jaramillo v. Glendale, County of et al
ORDER denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/18/14.(LSP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CV 13-1713-PHX-DGC (JFM)
Glendale County, et al.,
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff Edwin Jaramillo, who is confined in the Arizona
State Prison Complex ("ASPC")-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.1 In an Order dated
October 16, 2013, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave
Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which was also deficient. In an Order dated
December 30, 2013, the Court denied the Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff an
additional 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a new
On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, and in a March 18, 2014 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed
Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Change of Address, but the address on the
motion he filed on September 4, 2014 indicates that he is currently confined in ASPCLewis.
and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave
Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the
On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond
to Document #: 10-1.” On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In
a July 7, 2014 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim and denied the Motion for an Extension of Time as moot. The Court gave
Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the Order. The
Court warned Plaintiff that the Clerk of Court would enter a judgment of dismissal of this
action with prejudice if Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within 30 days.
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within 30 days and, therefore, the Clerk of
Court entered Judgment (Doc. 17) on August 21, 2014.
On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 18).
Plaintiff requests an extension of 30 days because he “has not had time to prepare a
response to the Court due to being in transport, and not having his legal paperwork to
prepare the information the Court Order requested.” Presumably, Plaintiff is requesting
an extension of time to file an amended complaint, but that is not clear from his Motion.
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. Judgment was entered in this case well
after the 30 days granted by the Court in which to file an amended complaint, and
Plaintiff did not file a motion for extension of time to amend within that 30 days.
Plaintiff does not allege or assert that he could not have done so.
circumstances, the Court will deny his motion.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 18) is denied.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2014.
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?