Rich v. Maricopa County Medical Center, et al

Filing 10

ORDER that Pla's 6 motion for review and extension of time is denied. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 08/05/09. (ESL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
JDDL

WO

SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Maricopa County Medical Center, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) Michael James Rich,

No. CV 09-8080-PCT-MHM (MEA) ORDER

Plaintiff Michael James Rich, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis, Bachman Unit, in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1, 3.) In an Order filed on May 21, 2009, the Court denied his in forma pauperis application with leave to pay the filing fee or to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application within 30 days. (Doc.# 4.) When nothing was filed in this case, this action was dismissed without prejudice on July 7, 2009. (Doc.# 5.) On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for review of judgment and a notice of appeal. (Doc.# 6, 7.) In his motion for review of judgment, Plaintiff explains that the Department of Corrections failed to timely respond to his request for copies of his inmate trust account statement. Plaintiff has submitted a copy of a statement by a Corrections Officer confirming that prison personnel caused the delay. Plaintiff has not explained, however, why he failed to timely file a motion for extension of time within which to comply with the Court's May

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
JDDL

21, 2009 Order, i.e., prior to entry of judgment. Once an appeal is filed, the district court no longer has jurisdiction to consider motions to vacate judgment. Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir.1986). In any event, the dismissal was without prejudice and Plaintiff does not assert that he will be in any way prejudiced if he commences a new action, particularly where he has never been assessed a filing fee in this case. Plaintiff's motion for review and extension of time to comply with the May 21, 2009 Order will be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for review and extension of time is denied. (Doc.# 6.) DATED this 5th day of August, 2009.

28

-2-