Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00301/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00301-0/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

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was deficient because it did not

include a certified six-month trust account statement. 

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Lee Sharp, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dennis Kendall, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-301-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

On February 10. 2010, Plaintiff David Lee Sharp, who is confined in the Arizona

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

§ 1983 (Doc. #1). Plaintiff did not immediately pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee or file

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On February 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a

deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) and an Amended Complaint

(Doc. #4).1

 

By Order filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. #5), the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days from the

filing date of the Order to pay the fee or file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement from the Central Office of the

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC).

Case 2:10-cv-00301-MHM--MHB Document 6 Filed 05/19/10 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 -

I. Failure to Comply with Court Order

To date, over two months after the filing date of the Court’s February 25, 2010 Order

(Doc. #5), Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order by either paying the $350.00

filing fee or filing a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month

trust fund account statement from the ADOC’s Central Office.

II. Dismissal of Complaint and Action

In the Court’s February 25, 2010 Order, the Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that

if he failed to timely comply with every provision of the Order, including the warnings, the

Court may dismiss 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). Accordingly, the Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) and this action will be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

for failure to comply with the Court’s Order filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. #5). In so doing,

the Court will also deny Plaintiff’s deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #3), which was filed prior to the filing of the Court’s February 25, 2010 Order.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) is

denied.

(2) The Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) and this action are dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to

comply with the Court’s Order filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. #5).

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00301-MHM--MHB Document 6 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 2