Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01971/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

28

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laura L. Medley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1971-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

On September 13, 2010, Plaintiff Laura L. Medley, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint,

a “Notice of Constitutional Question,” and a “Motion for a Court Order Requiring A.D.O.C.

to Provide Plaintiff with Certificate of Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust

Account and Certified Inmate Bank Statement.” In an October 6, 2010 Order, the Court

denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file

a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

In a November 5, 2010 Order to Show Cause, the Court noted that Plaintiff appeared

to have at least “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days

to show cause why the dismissals of her prior lawsuits should not prevent her from

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. The Court specifically warned Plaintiff:

If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to

persuade the Court that § 1915(g) does not preclude her in forma

pauperis status, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed will be

Case 2:10-cv-01971-MHM--DKD Document 12 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 2
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

28

1

Plaintiff’s allegation in her original Complaint related to earned release credits. Her

allegation in her First Amended Complaint is that she has not received a second orthopedic

consultation because Defendant Ryan has not completely replaced medical speciality service

contracts that were terminated in November 2009.

- 2 -

denied, and the Complaint and this action will be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to

reassert these claims in the future, she must prepay the entire

$350.00 filing fee when she files her action.

Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. Instead, she filed a First

Amended Complaint that raised an issue entirely unrelated to the issue raised in her original

Complaint.1

The Court will dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to comply with the Court’s November 5th Order to Show Cause. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an

action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court’s

November 5, 2010 Order to Show Cause; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01971-MHM--DKD Document 12 Filed 12/14/10 Page 2 of 2