Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02052/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02052-3/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

FRANCIS GRANDINETTI PLAINTIFF

v. No. 06-2052

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH; et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Now on this 29th day of January 2008, there comes on for

consideration Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal out of time

(Doc. 10), Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Docket Sheet (Doc. 14) and

Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP (Doc. 17).

On September 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to

appeal out of time (Doc. 10). That same day, the U.S. District

Clerk forwarded an IFP application to Plaintiff and directed him to

either pay the filing fee for an appeal or to return the IFP

application by October 12, 2007.

On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting

additional time to complete and return the IFP application (Doc.

12). The Court granted this motion directing Plaintiff to return

the IFP application by November 15, 2007. 

On November 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed another motion (Doc. 15)

seeking an extension and stating he was prevented from complying

with the Court’s deadline due to rioting where he is currently

incarcerated. The Court granted that motion to allow Plaintiff

until January 14, 2008, to pay the appeal fee or return the

completed IFP application. The Court advised Plaintiff that no

further extensions would be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-02052-RTD Document 18 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Plaintiff failed to comply with the January 14 deadline, th

however, he filed the instant motion (Doc. 17) on January 22, 2008.

In the motion, Plaintiff attached an application to proceed IFP but

requests another extension contending prison officials “refuse to

certify IFP accounts, notarize his financial statements, or allow

photocopies of legal documents at bar.” Plaintiff further contends

he remains on “riot lock-down status.”

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the deadlines issued by

this Court and his likelihood of success on appeal is negligible.

Furthermore, Plaintiff represented on his application to appeal IFP

that he has access to accounts totaling $100,000.00. Accordingly,

the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal out of

time (Doc. 10) and Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP (Doc. 17) should

be DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Docket Sheet

(Doc. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02052-RTD Document 18 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>