Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01182/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01182-1/pdf.json

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

1

 Plaintiff states that he should be able to litigate in the forum he chooses. However,

because Plaintiff alleged constitutional violations against the Defendants, Defendants could

properly remove the case to federal court. Further, a federal court may exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(c), 1367.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas John Zolnierz,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jack Harris, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1182-PHX-RCB (MEA) 

ORDER

Plaintiff Douglas John Zolnierz, an inmate then-confined in the Arizona Department

of Corrections (ADC), filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court, matter No.

CV2011-091252, alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as state

law claims. (Doc. 1.) In an Order filed on June 28, 2011, the Court dismissed the Complaint

with leave to amend. (Doc. 10.) Shortly before that Order was filed, Defendants Bernstein,

Ditsworth, Donahoe, Donofrio, Gaines, Hauser, Jeanes, Kreamer, McMurdie, Mundell

Nelson, Newell, Ryan, Vandenberg, and Vatz filed a motion to dismiss and Plaintiff filed a

motion for extension of time to effect service and seeking a hearing. (Doc. 8, 9.) 

Both motions will be denied as moot. Defendants’ motion has been mooted by the

dismissal of the Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion is moot because the Court has already

determined that removal was proper.1

 Further, the Court will order service by the U.S.

Marshal’s Service when and if Plaintiff files an amended complaint using the court-approved

Case 2:11-cv-01182-RCB--MEA Document 11 Filed 06/30/11 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 -

form and the Court determines that he has stated a claim.

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.

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 this Order, 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 that Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for

extension of time to effect service and for a hearing are denied as moot. (Doc. 8, 9.)

DATED this 29th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01182-RCB--MEA Document 11 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 2