Maloch v. Cedar City Police Department et al, No. 2:2012cv00846 - Document 37 (D. Utah 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE -IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint isDISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), failure to follow Court orders, and failure to prosecute. The Court has given Plaintiff opportunities to amend and deems further opportunities futile. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/9/13. (jmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH TIMOTHY MICHAEL MALOCH, DISMISSAL ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff, Case No. 2:12-CV-846 CW v. CEDAR CITY POLICE DEP'T et al., District Judge Clark Waddoups Defendants. Plaintiff, inmate Timothy Michael Maloch, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2013), proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. 1915. Reviewing the Complaint under § 1915(e), in an Order dated June 7, 2013, the Court determined Plaintiff's Complaint was deficient. The Court then gave Plaintiff direction for curing the deficiencies, sent him a "Pro Se Litigant Guide," with a blank-form civil rights complaint, and ordered him to cure the deficiencies within thirty days. Instead of doing so, Plaintiff wrote the Court that he "will not be serving court order(s) involving 'Amend Deficiant [sic] Complaint and/or Memorandum Decision,'" and "It to my understanding that I should not have to Amend." Still, in case the Court had misunderstood Plaintiff's intentions, in a July 23, 2013 Order to Show Cause, (see Docket # 36), the Court gave Plaintiff another thirty days to heed the Court's earlier order. The Court again detailed the Complaint's deficiencies, gave Plaintiff detailed instructions, and sent Plaintiff another blank-form civil-rights complaint. He has not responded. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), failure to follow Court orders, and failure to prosecute. The Court has given Plaintiff opportunities to amend and deems further opportunities futile. This case is CLOSED. DATED this 9th day of September, 2013. BY THE COURT: _____________________________ JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS United States District Court 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
