Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08062/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08062-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Russell King, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-8062-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On May 21, 2010 this Court entered an order (Dkt. #18) granting State Defendants’

motion to dismiss (Dkt. #10) and allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The order

stated that this matter would be terminated on June 18, 2010 if Plaintiff failed to file an

amended complaint by that date. On June 22, 2010, the Clerk terminated this action for

Plaintiff’s apparent failure to respond to the order (Dkt. #18). 

One June 21, 2010, the Clerk’s office received Plaintiff’s second amended complaint,

(which is dated June 18, 2010 but received by the Clerk’s office on June 21, 2010). Because

it appears that Plaintiff attempted to comply with the Court’s order of May 21, 2010, the

Court will permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint and proceed with this case. Plaintiff is

once again advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

(“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. If Plaintiff otherwise

fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

Case 3:09-cv-08062-DGC Document 20 Filed 06/22/10 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 -

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Directing the Clerk to reopen this matter.

2. Directing the Clerk to file Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08062-DGC Document 20 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2