Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02595/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 RP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry L. Moore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Unknown Parties, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2595-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #9). The Court will deny the Application to Proceed and dismiss the Complaint and

this action without prejudice.

I. Procedural Background

On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff Larry L. Moore, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Safford, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. #1). Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee but filed a deficient

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3). By Order filed December 22, 2009

(Doc. #4), the Court denied the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without prejudice

and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a new, completed Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement from the Central Office

of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC).

On December 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Case 2:09-cv-02595-GMS--JRI Document 11 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

The “Inmate Account Statement” covered the period of time from January 24, 2009,

until August 11, 2009. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1) was not filed until

December 11, 2009, almost five months after the date of the “Inmate Account Statement.”

- 2 -

Pauperis (Doc. #5) and an “Inmate Account Statement” (Doc. #6). Although Plaintiff filed

the second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the court-approved form, Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed was deficient because the “Inmate Account Statement” filed with the

Application to Proceed did not appear to have been generated by the ADOC’s Central Office,

as required. Indeed, it was evident that the “Inmate Account Statement” was generated by

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Also, the “Inmate Account Statement” did not cover

the six months preceding the filing of the Complaint and had not been signed by an

authorized officer of the ADOC, as required.1

Accordingly, by Order filed April 1, 2010 (Doc. #8), Plaintiff’s second Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5) was denied without prejudice and Plaintiff was

granted one last chance to correct the deficiency. Plaintiff was given 30 days from the filing

date of the Order to pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a completed, certified Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement from the

ADOC’s Central Office that covers the six-month period immediately preceding the filing

of the Complaint.

II. New Application to Proceed is Deficient

On April 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #9). Although Plaintiff has filed the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the

court-approved form, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed is deficient because Plaintiff has yet

again failed to file a certified six-month trust account statement from the ADOC’s Central

Office that covers the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.

In light of this deficiency, Plaintiff’s new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #9) will be denied.

Case 2:09-cv-02595-GMS--JRI Document 11 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

III. Failure to Comply with Court Order

In dismissing Plaintiff’s previous Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #5) without prejudice, the Court stated in its April 1, 2010 Order (Doc. #8) that it was

granting Plaintiff “one last chance to correct the deficiency.” Additionally, the Court

specifically cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with every provision of the

Order, including the warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. 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). 

By filing a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #9) that does not

include a certified six-month trust account statement from the ADOC’s Central Office,

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s April 1, 2010 Order (Doc. #8). 

IV. Dismissal of Complaint and Action

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1) and this action will be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

for failure to comply with the Court’s Order filed April 1, 2010 (Doc. #8).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #9) is denied.

(2) The Complaint (Doc. #1) and this action are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the

Court’s Order filed April 1, 2010 (Doc. #8).

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) The docket must reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 4th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02595-GMS--JRI Document 11 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 3