Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00957/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00957-1/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

1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case. 

JDDL-K

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Torrez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corp. of America, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0957-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff David Torrez, a California inmate who is confined in the La Palma

Correctional Center, a Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) facility in Eloy, Arizona,

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.# 1.)1

 In an Order

filed on June 11, 2009, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend within 30

days. (Doc.# 4.) On July 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time until

August 9, 2009 in which to file an amended complaint due to a lock-down of his facility that

prevented him from accessing the law library. (Doc.# 6.) The Court will grant Plaintiff the

requested extension. 

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

Case 2:09-cv-00957-MHM--MHB Document 7 Filed 07/14/09 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 -

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 Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails to

file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in the Order filed on June

11, 2009, the dismissal will 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 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 and the Order

filed on Jule 11, 2009, including these warnings, 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 until August 9, 2009 in which to file

a First Amended Complaint is granted. (Doc.# 6.)

Case 2:09-cv-00957-MHM--MHB Document 7 Filed 07/14/09 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 -

(2) Plaintiff has until August 9, 2009 to file a first amended complaint in

compliance with the Order filed on June 11, 2009, doc.# 4. 

(3) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint no later than August 9, 2009,

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

with prejudice that states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 10th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00957-MHM--MHB Document 7 Filed 07/14/09 Page 3 of 3