Saavedra v. Penzone
| Felicia Saavedra |
| Paul Penzone |
| 2:2019cv04488 |
| June 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Michelle H Burns (PS) |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Prisoner: Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's order filed August 7, 2019, Plaintiff to take nothing, and the complaint and action are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. This dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (MSA) |
Filing 8
ORDER- Plaintiff's #7 First Amended Complaint and this action are dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 8/7/19. (MSA)
|
| Filing 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Paul Penzone filed by Felicia Saavedra. (7 pages)(MSA) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Felicia Saavedra. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/20/19. (MSA)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER- Plaintiff's #2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. The #1 Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an 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) and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/20/19. (MSA)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (MSA) |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Felicia Saavedra. (3 pages) (MSA) |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Felicia Saavedra. (2 pages) (MSA) |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed by Felicia Saavedra. (7 pages) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(MSA) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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
| Search for this case: Saavedra v. Penzone | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Paul Penzone | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Felicia Saavedra | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
