Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05884/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05884-2/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

JDDL

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas W. Derello,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

McAdorey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-05884-PHX-MTL (JFM)

ORDER

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Douglas W. Derello, who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a January 15, 2020 Order, the Court gave 

Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file an Application to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff paid the filing and administrative fees. In a March 9, 

2020 Order, the Court 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 Order. 

On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Explain Reason for Not Using 

Court Issued Document and a First Amended Complaint. In his Motion, Plaintiff explained 

that he did not use the court-approved form because the “only legible way [for him] to 

communicate is through the Court Order use of a computer.” In a March 23, 2020 Order, 

the Court granted the Motion to the extent Plaintiff was requesting the Court accept his 

Case 2:19-cv-05884-MTL Document 13 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

JDDL

First Amended Complaint despite it not being on the court-approved form. The Court 

dismissed the First Amended Complaint because it did not comply with Rule 7.1(b) of the 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

gave Plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 

identified in the Order.

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On April 30, 2020, 

he filed a Third Amended Complaint.

I. Plaintiff’s Request for Relief is Unreadable

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is typed, except for the last page, which 

contains Plaintiff’s signature and an illegible handwritten Request for Relief. Because 

there is no way the Court or Defendants could discern what relief Plaintiff is seeking, the 

Court will direct Plaintiff to file a typed Request for Relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3) 

(“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a demand for the relief sought, 

which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(e) (authorizing a party to “move for a more definite statement of a pleading . . . which 

is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response ”); see also

Cobb v. Marshall, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1259 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (“the court has the 

‘inherent authority’ to act on its own and sua sponte direct a plaintiff to replead a 

complaint.” (quoting Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1083 n.6 (11th Cir.1996)).

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 

action.

B. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

Case 2:19-cv-05884-MTL Document 13 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

JDDL

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: 

(1) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a typed Request 

for Relief. 

(2) If Plaintiff fails to file a typed Request for Relief within 30 days, the Clerk 

of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without

prejudice and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. 

Dated this 6th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-05884-MTL Document 13 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 3