Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03836/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03836-2/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gene Caprio, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3836-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Gene Caprio, while incarcerated in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc.

#1). Plaintiff, who was subsequently released, was ordered to either pay the requisite filing

fee or show cause why he could not do so (Docs. ##3, 4). Plaintiff filed a motion for

extension of time to pay the filing fee (Doc. #5). This Court granted the motion and pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), screened the Complaint (Doc. #6). Determining that Plaintiff’s

Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, this Court dismissed

the Complaint without prejudice and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within

30 days (Id.). Plaintiff was further informed that if he failed to file an Amended Complaint,

his action would be dismissed with prejudice and without further notice (Id.). Plaintiff

subsequently filed a second, identical Motion for Extension of Time to Pay the Filing Fee

(Doc. #7).

On May 5, 2006, this Court issued an order informing Plaintiff that if he failed to file

an Amended Complaint within 30 days, his action would be dismissed (Doc. #6). Because

more than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff’s

Case 2:05-cv-03836-DGC--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/11/06 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 -

action will be dismissed with prejudice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992) (providing that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with

any order of the Court). In addition, because this Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time

to pay the filing fee (Doc. #6), his pending Motion for an Extension (Doc. #7) will be denied

as moot.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #7) is denied as moot.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03836-DGC--DKD Document 8 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2