Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00724/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00724-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bette Jan Steinhillber, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-724-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

Pending in this closed case is Plaintiff’s “Motion: For Transcripts of Comple[]te

Record” (Doc. 11), which the Court will deny.

I. Procedural Background

On March 31, 2010, Plaintiff John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3). By Order filed May 5, 2010 (Doc. 5),

the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, assessed a partial

filing fee of $1.53, and dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff was given 30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first amended complaint

in compliance with the Order. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter a judgment of

dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff if he failed

to file a first amended complaint within 30 days. 

When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s May 5, 2010 Order (Doc. 5), the

Case 2:10-cv-00724-RCB--DKD Document 12 Filed 01/24/11 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 -

Clerk of Court entered a Judgment of dismissal of this action on June 21, 2010 (Doc. 7).

Then, on July 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 8), in which he asked for

“extensions & or the re[]opening and new directives” for this and two other cases. By Order

filed September 16, 2010 (Doc. 10), the Court denied Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court”

(Doc. 8), which the Court construed as being brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and directed the Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiff’s lodged Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). This case was ordered to remain closed.

II. Motion for Transcripts of Complete Record

On October 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion: For Transcripts of Comple[]te Record”

(Doc. 11), in which he requests that the Court send him a copy of all the cases he has filed

with this Court because his “paperwork has been destroyed from flooding and is no longer

legible.” Plaintiff alleges that his “cell was flooded from people throwing water in a bucket

under [his] door.” Plaintiff further alleges that his “files are ruined.”

Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied. This Court is not in a position to act as a copy

service for Plaintiff. Moreover, this case is closed and must remain closed.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion: For Transcripts of Comple[]te Record” (Doc. 11) is

denied.

(2) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00724-RCB--DKD Document 12 Filed 01/24/11 Page 2 of 2