Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02515/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02515-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dale Frank Maisano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stephen M. McNamee, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2515-PHX-RCB (MHB)

ORDER

I. Background

Plaintiff Dale Frank Maisano, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexTucson in Tucson, Arizona, has so often and egregiously abused the legal process in the past

that on August 11, 1992, Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee entered

an Order and Restraining Order enjoining him from filing any civil action in this or any other

federal court without first obtaining leave of the court. See August 11, 1992 Order and

Restraining Order in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS). 

Pursuant to the Restraining Order, to obtain leave to file, Plaintiff must file an

“Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File” accompanied by an affidavit

certifying: (1) “that the claim or claims he wishes to present are new and have never been

raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court”; and (2) “that to the best of his

knowledge the claim or claims are not frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Additionally, any

application seeking leave to file must be accompanied by a copy of the August 11, 1992

Case 2:09-cv-02515-RCB--MHB Document 10 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court notes that Plaintiff appealed the final judgment in CV 92-1026-PHXSMM (MS) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 17, 1993, the Court lodged a

certified copy of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate dismissing the appeal.

- 2 -

Order and Restraining Order in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS).1 In

addition, Plaintiff “must attach to future complaints a list of all cases previously filed

involving similar or related causes of action.” “Failure to comply strictly with the terms of

the [Restraining Order] will be sufficient ground to deny leave to file.” 

II. Discussion

On December 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking

Leave to File” (Doc. #1), and lodged a civil rights Complaint (Doc. #4) and an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3). By Order filed December 7, 2009 (Doc. #6), this

case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge for all further proceedings. 

A. Application Pursuant to Court Order

Accompanying the “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File”

(Doc. #1) are a copy of the August 11, 1992 Order and Restraining Order, an affidavit that

complies with that Order, and a list of previously filed cases. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s

Application Pursuant to Court Order and will permit Plaintiff to file this lawsuit. The Court

will direct the Clerk of Court to file the lodged Complaint and the lodged Application to

Proceed.

B. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a

civil judgment in forma pauperis 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 a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Case 2:09-cv-02515-RCB--MHB Document 10 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 4
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

The August 11, 1992 Order and Restraining Order notes that, of the 36 complaints

Plaintiff filed as of July 23, 1992, “seven complaints were dismissed for failure to state a

non-frivolous claim . . . [, s]even of Plaintiff’s complaints failed to present factual allegations

. . . [, and n]ine of the Plaintiff’s complaints either failed to name the proper defendants or

failed to present claims against the named defendants.”

- 3 -

As detailed in the August 11, 1992 Order and Restraining Order, Plaintiff has

significantly more than 3 strikes.2

 Thus, he may not bring a civil action without complete

prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical

injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and has not made a credible allegation in his

pleading that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff’s allegation in the

Complaint that he “most likely ha[s] A.L.S. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis” is not credible.

Plaintiff does not provide any information on why he “most likely” has A.L.S., does not

provide a diagnosis by a medical doctor, and does not even describe any of his symptoms.

Therefore, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action, without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915(g). If

Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, he must comply with the August 11,

1992 Order and Restraining Order and must prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when he

files his action.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File”

(Doc. #1) is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file this lawsuit.

(2) The Clerk of Court must file the lodged Complaint (Doc. #4) and the lodged

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3).

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

(4) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #4) and this action are dismissed without

prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the

Case 2:09-cv-02515-RCB--MHB Document 10 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

future, he must comply with the August 11, 1992 Order and Restraining Order and must

prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when he files his action.

(5) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

Dated this 16th day of February , 2010 .

Case 2:09-cv-02515-RCB--MHB Document 10 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 4