Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01546/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dale Maisano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Terry L. Allred, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1546-PHX-SMM (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal (Or) Leave To File” (Doc.

#6), which the Court will deny in part and grant in part. 

I. Procedural Background 

On August 10, 2007, Plaintiff Dale Maisano, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. #1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3). By Order filed

August 15, 2007 (Doc. #4), the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action without

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-filing requirements set out in the

Court’s Order and Restraining Order of August 11, 1992, in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-

PHX-SMM (MS). The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Judgment was accordingly entered on August 15, 2007 (Doc. #5).

II. Notice of Appeal or Leave to File

On August 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed his “Notice of Appeal (Or) Leave To File” (Doc.

#6) (Notice), in which he gives this Court the choice of either granting him leave to “file this

Case 2:07-cv-01546-SMM--GEE Document 7 Filed 02/25/08 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

- 2 -

action”or “[i]t is [a]ppealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Because Plaintiff’s request for leave to file this action calls into question the

correctness of the underlying judgment, the Court will treat the Notice as a motion under

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend judgment, and, in the

alternative, a notice of appeal.

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

After having considered the foregoing standards, and liberally reviewing this Court’s

previous Order filed August 15, 2007 (Doc. #4), the record in this case, and Plaintiff’s

Notice, the Court declines to reverse itself and set aside its Order and the judgment in this

case. The Complaint and this action were dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure

to comply with the pre-filing requirements set out in the Court’s Order and Restraining Order

of August 11, 1992, in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS). Plaintiff does not

dispute that he failed to so comply. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Notice in

part to the extent that he seeks leave to file this action.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Notice in part to the extent that he seeks to appeal the

Court’s Order (Doc. #4) and judgment (Doc. #5) in this case. The Clerk will be directed to

treat the Notice as a Notice of Appeal. In so doing, the Court also will sua sponte certify

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that the appeal is not taken in good faith.

Lastly, Plaintiff requests in the Notice that the Clerk of Court send him a copy of the

Court’s Order and Restraining Order of August 11, 1992, in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-

PHX-SMM (MS). Because Plaintiff filed a copy of said Order and Restraining Order with

a recently filed case, Maisano v. Bedinger, CV 07-2502-PHX-SMM (GEE), the Court will

not direct the Clerk of Court to send him the requested copy.

Case 2:07-cv-01546-SMM--GEE Document 7 Filed 02/25/08 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal (Or) Leave To File” (Doc. #6) is denied in part

in so far as Plaintiff’s request for leave to file this action is treated by the Court as a motion

under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend judgment, and

granted in part in so far as Plaintiff asks to appeal the Court’s Order (Doc. #4) and

judgment (Doc. #5) in this case.

(2) The Clerk of Court must treat Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal (Or) Leave To

File” (Doc. #6) as a Notice of Appeal.

(3) The Court sua sponte certifies pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that the

appeal is not taken in good faith. Plaintiff is denied in forma pauperis status on appeal. 

DATED this 25th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01546-SMM--GEE Document 7 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 3