Free Order to Show Cause - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

SRM

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 Charles McManus, Plaintiff -vsCarl B. Dodge, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2327-PHX-MHM (JI) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

On July 3, 2006, the Court ordered (#82) Plaintiff to provide to the Court and serve on Defendants copies of the exhibits to his Response (#83) to the Motion for Summary Judgment (#53). The Court had stricken Plaintiff's previous response, and ordered the return to Plaintiff of his exhibits upon being advised by Plaintiff that he had failed to retain copies of his exhibits (Order 4/18/06, #74; Motion to Extend, #77; Order 6/5/6, #78). In the meantime, to allow briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment to be completed, the Court has directed the Clerk to forward copies to Defendants. (Order 7/3/06, #82.) Plaintiff has now filed a notice again asserting that the Court has his only copy of his exhibits, and offering that upon return of copies, Plaintiff will attempt to provide copies to chambers and Defendants. Without further explanation, Plaintiff asserts that he "makes every effort to comply with the Rules." (#87 at 1.) Plaintiff argues in his Notice filed July 5, 2006 that he "attempted to have copy(s) made of the exhibits, all seventy-six (76) pages, but, once again, to no avail." (#86 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that although he has sought the Court's assistance in getting copies made "by way of a court order," he has not sought to shift the cost of copies to the court. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff does not elaborate on when or why he has had to seek court assistance in having copies made. Ignorance of the rules is obviously not the obstacle. Plaintiff is no novice. He has been engaged in litigation of some form or another in this District since 1991. (See McManus v.
Document 88 1 - Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

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

State of Arizona, CV-91-1898-PHX-RGS-MS.) Since then he has prosecuted some ten different cases, including this one. (See also McManus v. State of Arizona, CV-93-0222PHX-RGS-MS; McManus v. State of Arizona, CV-98-2190-PHX-MHM-JRI; Mcmanus v. Hiestand, CV-95-0878-TUC-FRZ; McManus v. Does, CV-00-1861-PHX-JWS-JRI;

McManus v. Gibson, CV-01-1225-PHX-MHM-JRI; McManus v. Goldsmith, CV-02-0478PHX-MHM-JRI; McManus v. Ridgley, CV-04-2813-PHX-MHM-JRI; and McManus v. Schriro, CV-06-0498-PHX-MHM-JRI.) In doing so, Plaintiff has filed no less than four responses to motions for summary judgment. (See CV-91-1898-PHX-ROS-MS, #39; CV-930222-PHX-RGS-MS, #26; CV-98-2190-PHX-MHM-JRI, #85; CV-01-1225-PHX-MHMJRI, #79.) Plaintiff leaves the Court to wonder what other valid explanation he might have for his failure to provide copies he knows must be provided to the Court and Defendants. Plaintiff has previously failed to provide the required copies of his exhibits with no more explanation than that he was "unable to obtain copy(s)." (See Notice, 4/11/06 #68.) The experience of the Court is that the Arizona Department of Corrections' policies and practices allow inmates to make the required copies of legal filings, albeit subject to charges to their inmate accounts (even if resulting in a negative balance). Despite Plaintiff's assurances to the contrary, appearances, including Plaintiff's provision of handmade copies of his filings to chambers, suggest that Plaintiff tries to avoid the costs of copying charges to his inmate account. In any event, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules will not be further rewarded by having the Court now bear the cost of copies Plaintiff should have provided at the outset. Plaintiff will be given a brief extension of time to comply with the Court's order, because Plaintiff will need to obtain the required copies from the Clerk of the Court (at Plaintiff's expense), and then prepare and forward the required copies. Further extensions are unlikely. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the filing of this Order to either: (1) comply with the Court's Order filed July 3, 2006 (#82); or (2) show cause why his response to the motion for summary judgment should not be stricken
Document 88 2 - Filed 07/18/2006 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

1 2 3 4

without opportunity to re-file, for failure to comply with the Court's rules and orders..

DATED: July 17, 2006
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2327-o Order 06 07 12 re OSC re Copies.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI Document 88 3 - Filed 07/18/2006 Page 3 of 3