Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02502/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02502-0/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

28

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff appealed the final judgment in CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM

(MS) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 17, 1993, the Court lodged a certified

copy of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate dismissing the appeal.

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dale Maisano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Helen Bedinger, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2502-PHX-SMM (GEE)

ORDER

Plaintiff Dale Maisano, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma

in Yuma, Arizona, has so often and egregiously abused the legal process in the past that on

August 11, 1992, the Court entered an Order and Restraining Order enjoining him from filing

any civil action in this or any other federal court without first obtaining leave of the court.

See August 11, 1992 Order in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS). 

Pursuant to the Restraining Order, to obtain leave to file, Plaintiff must file an

“Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File” accompanied by an affidavit

certifying: (1) that the claim or claims presented are new and have never been raised and

disposed of on the merits by any federal court; and (2) that to the best of his knowledge the

claim or claims presented are not frivolous or taken in bad faith. Additionally, any

application seeking leave to file must be accompanied by a copy of the August 11, 1992

Order and Restraining Order in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS).1

Case 2:07-cv-02502-SMM--GEE Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 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 -

Moreover, “the failure to comply strictly with the terms of the [Restraining Order] shall be

sufficient grounds to deny leave to file.”

On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed an “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking

Leave to File” (Doc. #1). Plaintiff has attached a copy of the Restraining Order; certified

that, to the best of his knowledge, the claims presented are not frivolous or taken in bad faith;

and certified that the “claim or claims presented are new and have never been raised and

disposed of on the merits by any federal court; for this Prison term.” (Emphasis added). 

The statement “for this Prison term,” does not strictly comply with the terms of the

Restraining Order and suggests that the claims in the lodged Complaint and lodged First

Amended Complaint have been raised and disposed of on the merits during Plaintiff’s prior

prison term—the one that resulted in the Restraining Order. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed

to strictly comply with the Court-mandated pre-filing requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Application will be denied and this action will be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s

failure to strictly comply with the Court’s prior Order and Restraining Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application Pursuant to Court Order

Seeking Leave to File (Doc. #1) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02502-SMM--GEE Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2