Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02886/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02886-1/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 JDDL-k

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Randolph Brown, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2886-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Plaintiff John Randolph Brown, confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence, filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 17,

2006, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend (Doc. #8). To date, Plaintiff

has not filed an amended complaint.

On May 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Continue on the Inactive Calendar”

(Doc. #10). In his Motion, Plaintiff asks that this Court stay this case for one year, until he

is moved to a less restrictive housing assignment. Plaintiff states that because of his current

housing assignment, he is unable to conduct legal research. 

The Court finds that a one year stay of proceedings in this case is not reasonable.

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche

Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). If Plaintiff believes that he cannot

effectively prosecute this case at this time, Plaintiff should file a Notice of Dismissal

Case 2:05-cv-02886-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 07/24/06 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

JDDL-k - 2 -

pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court will grant Plaintiff a 45 day extension of time in which to file an amended

complaint which complies with the Court’s May 17, 2006 Order. 

Rule 41(b) Warning

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, this action will

be dismissed 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). Moreover, because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if

Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in the

Court’s May 17, 2006 Order, the dismissal of this action will count as a “strike” under the

“three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Continue on the Inactive Calendar” (Doc. #10) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff has 45 days from the filing date of this Order to file an amended

complaint which complies with the Court’s May 17, 2006 Order.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice

and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within

45 days of the filing date of this Order. Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk must make an

entry on the docket stating that the dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 21st day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02886-SMM--VAM Document 11 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2