Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00275/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00275-0/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

1

 Many inmates apparently believe that they will receive an immediate payout from a fund

established in Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). No such fund exists. The

inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. The Court at this time

expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of damages. 

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amado Gonzalez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 

Defendant . 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0275-PHX-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Amado Gonzalez, a county jail inmate at the Maricopa County Durango Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona,1

 filed a pro se Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5),

seeking reconsideration of this Court’s April 18, 2005 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Complaint without prejudice (Doc. #4). The Application will be construed as a motion to

amend a judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and will be denied.

On January 14, 2005, the Court received Plaintiff’s Complaint for filing. (Doc. #1).

The same day, the Court issued a Notice of Assignment (Doc. #2) to Plaintiff. On March 3,

2005, this Court denied Plaintiff’s leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice,

providing that Plaintiff had 30 days to either pay the $150.00 filing fee or properly apply to

proceed in forma pauperis, or his Complaint would be dismissed. (Doc. # 3). Plaintiff failed

Case 2:05-cv-00275-NVW--LOA Document 6 Filed 10/26/05 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

- 2 -

to respond, and on April 18, 2005, this Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.

(Doc. #4). 

On April 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

indicating that on March 7 and 10, 2005, he requested the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

provide him a statement of his inmate trust account. (Doc. #5). Plaintiff also attached a

letter indicating that he has attempted to properly fill out his Application, but the jail officials

have not returned the form filled out to him. (Id.). In his Application, Plaintiff requested that

this Court reverse the judgment dismissing his Complaint. (Id.).

A party may seek to alter or amend a judgment within 10 days of the entry of the

judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Plaintiff’s request is thus timely. However, this Court will

denied Plaintiff’s request to reverse this Court’s April 18, 2005 judgment. (Doc. #5). 

To apply to proceed in forma pauperis, the prisoner must submit an affidavit of

indigence and a certified copy of his trust account statement for the six months preceding the

filing of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). He must include statements from each

institution where he was confined during the six months preceding the filing of the

Complaint. Id. To assist prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of

a form application under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4(a). Plaintiff’s original

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was deficient because (1) the Certificate of

Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account was not completed, and

(2) Plaintiff did not attach a certified copy of his trust account statement. (Doc. #1). Plaintiff

has yet to filed a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff’s instant

application consists of only the first page of the application form, and is deficient because

(1) he has not signed it, (2) he has not filed out the consent to collection of fees from his trust

account, (3) the Certificate of Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account

was not completed, and (3) a certified copy of his trust account statement was not attached.

(Doc. #5). 

Plaintiff argues that he has not filed a completed Application due to actions taken by

the jail. However, Plaintiff has made no further attempt to abide by this Court’s prior order

Case 2:05-cv-00275-NVW--LOA Document 6 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

to file a proper and completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and has not

requested additional time in which to do so. Moreover, without this information, this Court

cannot properly consider Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reversal of this Court’s April 18, 2005 order will be

denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) That Plaintiff’s request that his April 18, 2005, judgment be reversed is construed

as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion (Doc. #5).

(2) That Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion (Doc. #5) is denied.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00275-NVW--LOA Document 6 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 3