Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08080/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08080-1/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

JDDL

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael James Rich, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Medical Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8080-PCT-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael James Rich, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis, Bachman Unit, in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.#

1, 3.) In an Order filed on May 21, 2009, the Court denied his in forma pauperis application

with leave to pay the filing fee or to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application

within 30 days. (Doc.# 4.) When nothing was filed in this case, this action was dismissed

without prejudice on July 7, 2009. (Doc.# 5.) On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for

review of judgment and a notice of appeal. (Doc.# 6, 7.) 

In his motion for review of judgment, Plaintiff explains that the Department of

Corrections failed to timely respond to his request for copies of his inmate trust account

statement. Plaintiff has submitted a copy of a statement by a Corrections Officer confirming

that prison personnel caused the delay. Plaintiff has not explained, however, why he failed

to timely file a motion for extension of time within which to comply with the Court’s May

Case 3:09-cv-08080-MHM--MEA Document 10 Filed 08/11/09 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 - 2 -

21, 2009 Order, i.e., prior to entry of judgment. Once an appeal is filed, the district court no

longer has jurisdiction to consider motions to vacate judgment. Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir.1986). In any event, the dismissal was without prejudice

and Plaintiff does not assert that he will be in any way prejudiced if he commences a new

action, particularly where he has never been assessed a filing fee in this case. Plaintiff’s

motion for review and extension of time to comply with the May 21, 2009 Order will be

denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for review and extension of time is denied.

(Doc.# 6.) 

DATED this 5th day of August, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08080-MHM--MEA Document 10 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2