Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Jay Jeffers,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Officer Ortega, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

CV 04-572-PHX-MHM (MS)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Request for Motion to Decide Based on Damages
16

And Also On Wrongful Moral Misery Issues Also Informing Notice" (Doc. # 69), and
17

Plaintiff's "Responce [sic] to Courts Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's
18

Clearification [sic] Notice And Request of Court" (Doc. # 71, 72).
19

I.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's "Request for Motion to Decide Based on Damages And Also On Wrongful Moral Misery Issues Also Informing Notice" (Doc. # 69) The Court will strike document number 69 as improperly filed. To the extent

Plaintiff makes averments related to changing the relief sought in his case, Plaintiff must seek to amend his Amended Complaint. The Court has instructed Plaintiff on several occasions on the procedures for seeking amendment of the complaint, and the standards applied by the Court when it evaluates a motion to amend. However, as the Court has stated on previous occasion, the Court is unlikely to look favorably on any further attempt to amend the complaint.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 77

Filed 09/21/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court apply certain legal tests to the question presented by his Complaint, Plaintiff's request is prematurely filed. No question is currently before the Court (e.g., a dispositive motion or trial) in which the Court would be called upon to apply a legal principle to a determination of damages. II. Plaintiff's "Responce [sic] to Courts Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's Clearification [sic] Notice And Request of Court" (Doc. # 71, 72) In this document, Plaintiff makes averments relating to the provision of writing

7

materials at the Pinal County Jail.
8 9

The Court's September 1, 2005 Report and

Recommendation dealt with Plaintiff's claims that the Pinal County Jail would not provide him certain monies and had confiscated some of his legal materials. The Court
10

will order the Clerk to construe document number 71 as an objection to the Court's
11

September 1, 2005 Report and Recommendation, even though the document
12

addresses neither the money or legal materials issues.
13

As to the portion of the document that makes certain requests, the Court will
14

construe the document as a motion related to: (1) the provision of writing materials; (2)
15

a request to have certain legal standards applied to trial in this case; (3) provision of
16

copies of Plaintiff's filings to Defendants by the Clerk's Office, and to bill Plaintiff; and,
17

(4) a request for a pretrial order setting a trial. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion.
18

As noted by Defendants in their response, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has no
19

difficulty in submitting motions to the Court, which requires paper, pen/pencil and
20

envelopes. To the extent that Plaintiff requests the Clerk to provide copies of his filings
21

to Defendants, the request will be denied. Plaintiff is responsible for providing copies
22

to Defendants, and he has not demonstrated that he is otherwise incapable of doing so.
23

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a). The Court has issued its Scheduling Order,
24

and a trial date will not be set until any dispositive motion is decided, or the deadline for
25

filing such motions passes. Lastly, as for the application of certain legal standards to
26

Plaintiff's case, Plaintiff's request is repetitively filed. See supra.
27 28 Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA 2 Document 77 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court finds that Plaintiff's filings addressed in this Order are frivolous. The Court advises Plaintiff that any future filing of frivolous motions or other documents will result in the Court requiring Plaintiff to seek leave of Court before filing any document or motion with the Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's "Request for Motion to Decide Based on Damages And Also On Wrongful Moral Misery Issues Also Informing Notice" (Doc. # 69) is STRICKEN as improperly filed. 2. The Clerk shall construe document number 71 as an objection to the Court's September 1, 2005 Report and Recommendation. 3. Plaintiff's motion at document number 72 is DENIED for the reasons stated herein. DATED this 19th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

3 Document 77

Filed 09/21/2005

Page 3 of 3