Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02621/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02621-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Montgomery, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Krull, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2621-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff Donald Montgomery, who is confined in the Arizona

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a

December 14, 2010 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave

Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis.

On January 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. In a January 14, 2011 Order, the Court granted the second Application to Proceed

and dismissed the action. In his Complaint, Plaintiff had raised claims against two members

of the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office. The Court dismissed those claims

because a public defender representing a criminal defendant does not act under color of state

law, which is a prerequisite for a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff had also raised claims against two

members of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The Court dismissed those claims

Case 2:10-cv-02621-RCB--ECV Document 11 Filed 02/04/11 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

- 2 -

because the prosecutors were protected by absolute immunity. Because the defects in

Plaintiff’s Complaint could not be remedied, the Court dismissed the Complaint with

prejudice and did not give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint. The Clerk of

Court entered Judgment on January 14, 2011.

On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Continue to File an Objection to

Dismissal” (Doc. 10). Plaintiff seeks additional time to “clarify [the] foundation of his

claims.” Additional time is unnecessary because, as the Court has already determined, the

defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot be remedied. Thus, the Court will deny the Motion.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue to File an Objection to Dismissal” (Doc. 10)

is denied.

(2) This case must remain closed.

(3) The docket shall 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 February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02621-RCB--ECV Document 11 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 2