Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01696/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01696-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

JDDL

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Earl Rigsby, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1696-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

I. Procedural History

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff Raymond Earl Rigsby, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court

of Maricopa County, Arizona. On August 26, 2011, Defendant Jan Brewer filed a Notice of

Removal and removed the case to this Court. On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

document entitled “Writ of Prohibition and Request for Appropriate Sanctions,” in which he

requested that the Court issue a “Writ of Prohibition.” 

In a September 8, 2011 Order, the Court concluded that removal was appropriate

because Plaintiff, in his Complaint, raised claims for violations of his constitutional rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, without prejudice,

because Plaintiff had failed to file his Complaint on a court-approved form, as required by

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended

complaint on a court-approved form.

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 24 Filed 03/06/12 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

JDDL - 2 -

On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Vacate and or Amended Order

of 09-08-2011 (with Affidavit).” In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff requested that the Court

vacate or amend the September 2, 2011 Order and enter an order striking or dismissing the

Notice of Removal. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time,

requesting that the Court grant him an extension of time to file his first amended complaint

30 days after the Court ruled on his Motion to Vacate.

In a November 1, 2011 Order, the Court denied without prejudice the September 2nd

request for a “Writ of Prohibition,” granted the Motion to Extend Time, gave Defendant 20

days to file a response to the Motion to Vacate, and gave Plaintiff 10 days after the response

was filed to file a reply. The Court also allowed Plaintiff 30 days after the Court ruled on the

Motion to Vacate to file his first amended complaint.

On November 8, 2011, Defendant filed her Response. On November 18, 2011,

Plaintiff filed his Reply. On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Writ of

Prohibition.”

In a January 31, 2012 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and

Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days from the date

of this Order to file his first amended complaint.

On February 13, 2012, Plaintiff file a Notice of Change of Judge, which the Court

denied in a February 23, 2012 Order. On February 16, 2012, he filed a Notice of Appeal

from the January 31st Order. On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension

of Time (Doc. 23).

II. Jurisdiction–Notice of Appeal

Although the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal, the district court’s

jurisdiction is not affected when a litigant files a notice of appeal from an unappealable order.

Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993). “When a Notice of Appeal

is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer

jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 24 Filed 03/06/12 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

JDDL - 3 -

until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508

F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). In such a case, the district court “may disregard the purported

notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been deprived of

jurisdiction.” Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir.

1966). 

In the Court’s January 31st Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to remand the

case back to state court. The Order is not an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Caterpillar Inc v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996). The Order is not an interlocutory order

generally appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), and the Court did not provide the statement

necessary to make the Order an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Because Plaintiff’s February 16th Notice of Appeal refers to a non-appealable interlocutory

order, Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal did not divest the Court of jurisdiction. 

III. Pending Motion

In his Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff seeks a 45-day extension of time to file

his first amended complaint. The Court, in its discretion, will partially grant the Motion.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for a 45-day extension to be unreasonably long. Plaintiff

has been on notice since the Court issued its September 8, 2011 Order that he needed to file

an amended complaint on a court-approved form. The Court, therefore, will grant Plaintiff

an additional 30 days to file his first amended complaint.

IV. Warnings

A. 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.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 24 Filed 03/06/12 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

JDDL - 4 -

B. 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.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the September 8, 2011 Order

and this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further

notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (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 Extension of Time (Doc. 23) is granted in part; the

Court will grant Plaintiff a 30-day (rather than 45-day) extension of time.

(2) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended

complaint in compliance with the September 8, 2011 Order and this Order.

(3) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without

prejudice.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 24 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 4