Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01881/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01881-10/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-K

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Boteilho, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Washington, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1881-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Boteilho, who is confined in the Monroe Correctional ComplexTwin Rivers, in Monroe, Washington, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court for the Western District of Washington and was granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended

Complaint, which was ordered served on the Defendants prior to screening pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 10, 15.) The District Court for the Western District of Washington

subsequently denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted their motion to transfer

the case to this District. (Doc. 75.) In an Order filed on November 2, 2010, the Court

dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend within 30 days using this

District’s court-approved form complaint. (Doc. 77.) On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint until February 5, 2011. (Doc.

78.)

Plaintiff seeks a two month extension to file a second amended complaint because his

typewriter broke and has been sent out of the prison for repair. Plaintiff also seeks the

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 79 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

extension because of deadlines pending in other cases filed by him. The Court declines to

grant Plaintiff an additional two months to file an amended complaint and instead grants him

an additional 45 days within which to comply with the November 2, 2010 Order.

Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

C. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Plaintiff.

D. Possible “Strike”

Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed with leave to file a

amended complaint on the court-approved form, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in the November 2, 2010 Order, the dismissal

may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the

3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,

while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the

United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 79 Filed 12/14/10 Page 2 of 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, and the November 2, 2010 Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further

notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (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 within which to file a second

amended complaint is granted to the extent stated below. (Doc. 78.)

(2) Plaintiff is granted an additional 45-days from the filing date of this Order in

which to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the November 2, 2010 Order,

doc. 77.

(3) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the extension granted

herein, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this

action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

DATED this 13th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 79 Filed 12/14/10 Page 3 of 3