Jaramillo v. Glendale, County of et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/18/14.(LSP)

1
2

MD

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Edwin Jaramillo,

10
11
12

No. CV 13-1713-PHX-DGC (JFM)
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Glendale County, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff Edwin Jaramillo, who is confined in the Arizona

16

State Prison Complex ("ASPC")-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.1 In an Order dated

18

October 16, 2013, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave

19

Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application

20

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

21

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which was also deficient. In an Order dated

22

December 30, 2013, the Court denied the Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff an

23

additional 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application

24

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a new

25

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma

26

Pauperis, and in a March 18, 2014 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed

27
28

JDDL-K

1

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.

1

and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave

2

Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the

3

Order.

4

On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond

5

to Document #: 10-1.” On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In

6

a July 7, 2014 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to

7

state a claim and denied the Motion for an Extension of Time as moot. The Court gave

8

Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the Order. The

9

Court warned Plaintiff that the Clerk of Court would enter a judgment of dismissal of this

10

action with prejudice if Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

11

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within 30 days and, therefore, the Clerk of

12

Court entered Judgment (Doc. 17) on August 21, 2014.

13

On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 18).

14

Plaintiff requests an extension of 30 days because he “has not had time to prepare a

15

response to the Court due to being in transport, and not having his legal paperwork to

16

prepare the information the Court Order requested.” Presumably, Plaintiff is requesting

17

an extension of time to file an amended complaint, but that is not clear from his Motion.

18

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. Judgment was entered in this case well

19

after the 30 days granted by the Court in which to file an amended complaint, and

20

Plaintiff did not file a motion for extension of time to amend within that 30 days.

21

Plaintiff does not allege or assert that he could not have done so.

22

circumstances, the Court will deny his motion.

Under these

23

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 18) is denied.

24

Dated this 18th day of September, 2014.

25
26
27
28

JDDL-K

-2-