Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01050/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01050-1/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Loretta Ann Greer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Goodyear, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1050-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

In a June 24, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

because Plaintiff Loretta Ann Greer had not paid the filing fee, had three “strikes,” and had

not made a credible allegation in her four-count Complaint that she was in imminent danger

of serious physical injury and had not demonstrated a nexus between an alleged imminent

danger and her claims. Because the Court dismissed the Complaint, the Court denied as

moot Plaintiff’s “Motion for Emergenc[y] TRO Injunction.” The Clerk of Court entered

Judgment on June 24, 2010.

On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and

Enlarg[e]ment.” In a July 12, 2010 Order, the Court denied the Motion.

On July 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and

Enlarg[e]ment”(Doc. 16) that is virtually identical to her July 6th Motion and filed a “Memo

of Law Supporting Motion for Recon[s]ideration[,] Attorney[,] Exhibits, Declaration

Combined” (Doc. 17). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s second Motion for

Case 2:10-cv-01050-JAT--LOA Document 20 Filed 07/29/10 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 -

Reconsideration and her Memo. Plaintiff has presented nothing different than she presented

in her first Motion for Reconsideration. For the same reasons stated in the Court’s July 12,

2010 Order, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s second Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s second “Motion for Recon[s]ideration Attorney and Enlarg[e]ment”

(Doc. 16) is denied.

(2) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01050-JAT--LOA Document 20 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2