Howard 062341 v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 6, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01935·Unknown

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Ron D. Howard, No. CV 23-01935-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Parties, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff Ron D. Howard, who is confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a handwritten letter in Jensen v. Thornell, CV 12-00601- 17 PHX-ROS. (Doc. 4421 in CV 12-00601). In a May 9, 2023 order, the Court directed that 18 the letter be filed as a new individual action. (Doc. 4425 in CV 12-00601.) In accordance 19 with that Order, the Clerk of Court commenced this action and filed Plaintiff’s letter as a 20 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. No Complaint Pending 22 Before seeking relief, Plaintiff must first have a complaint pending before the Court. 23 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) 24 (“[W]hen a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 25 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”); see also Stewart v. INS, 762 26 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Only after an action has been commenced can preliminary 27 injunctive relief be obtained.”). Although the Clerk of Court characterized Plaintiff’s 28 motion as a “Complaint” in order to commence this action and facilitate consideration of 1 his allegations, the nature of Plaintiff’s filing remains the same: it is a motion seeking 2 medical treatment from allegedly deliberate indifferent conduct on the part of Arizona 3 Department of Corrections officials and contract medical providers, not a pleading seeking 4 relief for past harm. 5 In addition, the Complaint was not filed on the proper court-approved form. 6 According to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4, “[a]ll complaints . . . by incarcerated 7 persons shall be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved by the 8 Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” (Emphasis 9 added.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is not on the court-approved form. Although the Court may, 10 in its discretion, forgo the requirement that a plaintiff use a court-approved form, see 11 LRCiv 3.4, the Court will require use of the court-approved form here because Plaintiff’s 12 Complaint substantially differs from the court-approved form. The Court will dismiss the 13 Complaint without prejudice and will give Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 14 using the proper court-approved form.1 15 II. Payment of Filing Fee 16 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 17 $50.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 18 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 19 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 20 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 21 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 22 institution where he was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist prisoners in 23 meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. LRCiv 3.4. 24 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 25 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 26 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Howard 062341 v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Howard 062341 v. Unknown Party (Howard 062341 v. Unknown Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Eric Sanchez v. Duane R. Vild
891 F.2d 240 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
In Re Circle Trading Corporation
26 F.2d 193 (Second Circuit, 1928)
Clement v. California Department of Corrections
220 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. California, 2002)
McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
896 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1990)