Armendariz v. Pitman et al
Scott Jordan Armendariz |
William Pitman, Unknown Garrison and Unknown Jimenez |
2:2015cv00068 |
January 15, 2015 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Phoenix Division Office |
Gila |
Bridget S Bade (PS) |
David G Campbell |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 ORDER that the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10 ) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a seco nd amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/17/15. (KGM) |
Filing 8 ORDER granting 6 Plaintiff's Amended Application/Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee. The Complaint is dismissed with 30 days leave to amend. Clerk must enter dismissal with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) if Plaintiff fails to comply. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/8/15.(LSP) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.