Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00397/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00397-0/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

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of documents filed in this action. 

JDDL-K

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stacey Gruenberg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-397-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Stacey Gruenberg filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 regarding events at Maricopa County’s Estrella Jail. (Doc.# 1.)1

 The The Court

dismissed the Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Doc.#

12.) Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting a 30-day extension of that deadline so that she

may obtain a copy of the original complaint to assist her in drafting an amended complaint.

(Doc.# 13). The Court will grant the motion. 

Plaintiff is warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint or to comply

with previous orders may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an

action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint is

granted. Plaintiff must file her amended complaint no later than October 9, 2006. (Doc.#

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 14 Filed 09/01/06 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

13.) 

(2) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by October 9, 2006, the Clerk of

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice

that states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 31st day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 14 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 2