Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02193/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02193-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Stewart, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2193-PHX-RCB (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas Stewart, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 10, 2009, the Court denied the Application

to Proceed with leave to re-file. On December 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a new Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8). By Order filed January 20, 2010, the Court granted

Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend

(Doc. 11).

After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint

(Doc. 17) on March 22, 2010. On April 27, 2010, the Court dismissed the First Amended

Complaint with leave to amend. On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of

Time to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 19). By Order filed May 25, 2010, the Court

granted Plaintiff an additional 60 days to file a second amended complaint.

On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Order (Doc. 22).

On July 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Second Amended

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 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 - 2 -

Complaint (Doc. 24) and a Motion for Preserving Videotape (Doc. 25).

I. Motions

In his Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff requests an additional 30 days within

which to file a second amended complaint. In the May 25, 2010 Order, the Court specifically

warned Plaintiff that he would not be granted any further extensions of time. The Court will

therefore deny the Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff will have 10 days from the filing

day of this Order to file a second amended complaint.

In his Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Plaintiff appears to request a hearing and

that he be personally present for the hearing. As there is no complaint presently pending

before the Court, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for a hearing.

In his Motion for Preserving Videotape, Plaintiff asks that the Court order Defendants

to preserve of videotape of Plaintiff tripping and falling in a July 4, 2010 incident. Again,

there is no complaint pending before the Court. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore not properly

before the Court at this time and will be denied.

II. 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

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

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 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 - 3 -

to Plaintiff.

D. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the April 27, 2010 screening

Order, or 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 July 12, 2010 Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 24) is denied;

Plaintiff has 10 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended complaint in

compliance with the April 27, 2010 screening Order. 

(2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 10 days, the Clerk

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

prejudice.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Order (Doc. 22) is denied.

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preserving Videotape (Doc. 25) is denied.

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02193-RCB Document 26 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3