Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00478/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00478-0/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward Charles Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-478-PHX-MHM (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Good Cause” (Doc. #6) and

“Plaintiff, Petitioner[’]s Request for the producing of documents of essential Evidence (April

2, 2008 and May 7, 2008 parole board Revocation Tapes Transcripts)” (Doc. #7). The Court

will deny the Motion to Show Good Cause and deny the Request for documents as moot. 

I. Procedural Background

On March 12, 2008, Plaintiff Edward Charles Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (Doc. #1). Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee but filed a deficient

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3). 

By Order filed March 25, 2008 (Doc. #4), the Court denied the Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a new, completed

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Order directed the Clerk of Court to enter

a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-00478-MHM--GEE Document 8 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court’s Order (Doc. #4) was actually filed on March 25, 2008. Plaintiff may be

confused because a similar Order was filed in one of his other cases, CV 08-551-PHX-MHM

- 2 -

if Plaintiff failed to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a completed Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days.

When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s March 25, 2008 Order, the Clerk of

Court entered a judgment of dismissal against Plaintiff on May 21, 2008 (Doc. #5),

dismissing the Complaint and this action without prejudice. 

II. Motion to Show Good Cause

On May 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Good Cause” (Doc. #6),

in which he appears to be seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of this action for failure

to comply with the Court’s Order to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a completed

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days.

Because Plaintiff’s Motion calls into question the correctness of the underlying

judgment, the Court will treat the Motion as being brought under Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend judgment.

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Here, after having considered the foregoing standards, and liberally reviewing this

Court’s judgment of dismissal filed May 21, 2008 (Doc. #5), the record in this case, and

Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court declines to reverse itself and set aside the judgment of dismissal

in this case. The Complaint and this action were dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the Court’s Order filed March 25, 2008 (Doc. #4), which gave

Plaintiff 30 days from the filing date of the Order to pay the fee or file a new, completed

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has never complied with this Order.

In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges “on above Mar 26 and 27 of 08 the [P]laintiff was

ordered to submit to the Court his six month trust account bank statement.”1

 Plaintiff further

Case 2:08-cv-00478-MHM--GEE Document 8 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 4
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

(GEE), on March 27, 2008. Plaintiff has placed two case numbers on this Motion, the instant

case number, CV 08-478-PHX-MHM (GEE), and the other case number of CV 08-551-PHXMHM (GEE). 

2

Although Plaintiff has attached copies of various documents to his Motion, none of

them appear to relate directly to the mailing of his Applications to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis.

- 3 -

alleges that he mailed Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis to the Court sometime

around “Mar 12, 08" but that “Defendants” failed to mail out his Applications and withheld

them for weeks beyond his “court deadlines,” before calling him to the “Inmate Mail and

property” to remail them.2

 Plaintiff claims that he failed to meet the Court-ordered deadline

“by no fault of his-self.”

To comply with the Court’s March 25, 2008 Order (Doc. #4) in this case, Plaintiff’s

Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis would have needed to be filed by April 24, 2008.

Assuming Defendants held Plaintiff’s Application for “weeks” after the deadline as Plaintiff

claims, his Application could still have been filed with the Court before the Clerk of Court

entered a judgment of dismissal on May 21, 2008 (Doc. #5), almost a month after the Court’s

April 24, 2008 deadline. No Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis has ever been filed

in this case after the Court’s March 25, 2008 Order. Curiously, Plaintiff did manage to file

a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in his other case, CV 08-551-PHX-MHM

(GEE), on May 8, 2008. 

III. Request for Production of Documents

On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff, Petitioner[’]s Request for the producing of

documents of essential Evidence (April 2, 2008 and May 7, 2008 parole board Revocation

Tapes Transcripts)” (Doc. #7). In light of the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court will

deny Plaintiff’s Request as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Good Cause” (Doc. #6), which the Court is

treating as being brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is

denied.

Case 2:08-cv-00478-MHM--GEE Document 8 Filed 07/28/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

(2) “Plaintiff, Petitioner[’]s Request for the producing of documents of essential

Evidence (April 2, 2008 and May 7, 2008 parole board Revocation Tapes Transcripts)” (Doc.

#7) is denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00478-MHM--GEE Document 8 Filed 07/28/08 Page 4 of 4