Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

l WO
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Connie R. ZAKRAJ SEK, No. 07-15681
10 Plaintiff/Appellant, D.C. No. CV 04-0449-PHX-SMM
ORDER
ll v.
12 Susan ARMSTRONG, et al.,
13 Defendants/Appellees.
14
15 This matter was referred to the Court for the limited purpose of determining whether this
16 appeal has been taken in good faith or is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(a)(3). The Court finds
17 that this appeal is frivolous.
18 Plaintiff/Appellant’s original Complaint was dismissed on summary judgment. Before
19 addressing the motion for surmnary judgment, the Court warned Plaintiff/Appellant in two
20 separate Orders of the dangers that could result from a failure to respond to a motion for
21 summary judgment. (Dkts. 34, 37) The Court also granted Plaintiff/Appellant additional time
22 to file a response even though the Court-ordered deadline for filing such a response had passed.
23 (Dkt. 45) Despite the Court’s repeated wamings, Plaintiff did not pursue this matter and the
24 Court dismissed Plaintiff/Appellant’s Complaint on the merits.
25 Plaintiff/Appellant subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider, which was dismissed
26 because it was supported only by the conclusory statements that the Court was "grossly
mistaken" in its decision and that the decision was based upon "false statements of Defendants
ig and their attomeys." (Dkt. 52)
Case 2:04—cv—00449-SI\/II\/I Document 57-2 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 2

1 This is the fourth time Plaintiff/Appellant has come to the District Court in Arizona as
2 a pro se litigant and her history with the court reveals a pattern of bringing frivolous claims-
3 claims that cost the Court and the defendants valuable time and resources. Her first claim was
4 dismissed for a failure to prosecute, her second and third claims were improper removal
5 attempts, which were both remanded back to the state court; and then there is the instant claim,
6 which the Court finds lacks merit as it is based on nothing more than conclusory allegations.
7 Accordingly, the Court finds that this appeal is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
8 DATED this 20"‘ day of June, 2007.
9
10
U
12 Unite?S$£es Disiricinftiflge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 °
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
Case 2:04—cv—00449-SI\/II\/I Document 57-2 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 57-2

Filed 06/27/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 57-2

Filed 06/27/2007

Page 2 of 2