Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02454/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02454-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 is a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA) because he was a prisoner at the time he commenced this action. That is, Plaintiff

was a “person incarcerated or detained in any facility” who had been convicted and

sentenced for violations of criminal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). As a

consequence, this case is subject to requirements under the PLRA and this action is subject

to screening by the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Stoller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2454-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in

Dixon, Illinois, commenced this action in the Central District of Illinois.1

 That Court

transferred the action to this District based on venue. (Doc. 1, 2.) In an Order filed on

January 3, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a

motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 16.) Additionally, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to show cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed based on his

lack of the capacity to commence this action and, if he did so, to either pay the filing fee or

file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas) on this District’s

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 27 Filed 01/13/12 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 -

approved form. (Id.) Because it appears that Plaintiff lacked the capacity to commence this

action and he had not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on this District’s

approved form for use by prisoners, the Court denied his motion for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 19, 21.) The Court will grant his motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is 

granted. (Doc. 21.)

DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 27 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 2