Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00343/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00343-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Leonard L. Manning, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

John Gay, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-0343-PHX-SMM (MHB) 

 O R D E R 

On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff Leonard L. Manning, who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison-Central Arizona Correctional Facility (“CACF”), filed a pro se civil 

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. In a March 14, 2014 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed 

because Plaintiff did not file a certified six-month trust account statement. The Court 

gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or to file a complete 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, including a certified six-month trust account 

statement. 

On April 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief from the Court’s Order.” In 

a June 16, 2014 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion, but gave Plaintiff another 30 

days to either pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, including a certified six-month trust account 

statement. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. In a September 16, 2014 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed 

Case 2:14-cv-00343-SMM--MHB Document 17 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to 

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff did not do so and, on October 31, 2014, the Clerk of 

Court entered a judgment of dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. 

On November 24, 2014, more than three weeks after the Clerk entered judgment, 

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 

13). On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a 

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 14). 

In the Motion for Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff 

states he suffers from medical disabilities which impede his penmanship and ability to 

write. Plaintiff further re-iterates the claims in his original complaint and argues that he 

is entitled to access to the courts. Plaintiff does not explain why he was unable to request 

an extension of time within the 30-day filing deadline or why he filed nothing until three 

weeks after a judgment of dismissal was entered.1

 Accordingly, the Court will deny the 

Motion for Extension of Time. 

 Plaintiff has also filed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Notice of Appeal 

(Doc. 14). Rule 4(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides: 

If a party timely files in the district court any of the following 

motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time 

to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order 

disposing of the last such remaining motion: 

. . . 

(iv) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59; 

. . . 

(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed not later 

than 28 days after judgment is entered. 

 

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff was able to timely comply with the two previous filing deadlines set by the Court in this case. The Court further notes Plaintiff has filed 

five previous actions with this Court and is familiar with the Court’s procedures and filing deadlines. 

Case 2:14-cv-00343-SMM--MHB Document 17 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 Although Plaintiff does not label his November 24, 2014 Motion for Extension of 

Time as a motion for relief under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the Court will construe the Motion as such. As this Order disposes of 

the Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff’s December 31, 2014 Notice of Appeal is 

timely. The Court will therefore grant the Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a 

Notice of Appeal. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s November 24, 2014 Motion for Extension of Time to File a First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is denied. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s December 31, 2014 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a 

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 14) is granted. 

 (3) The Clerk of Court must send a copy of this order to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00343-SMM--MHB Document 17 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 3