· ‘ ` __ FILED ______ LODG D
nas oocunnwr is rx Piaoplga rom .·\(ZCORl)lX
9,0, Box 243 REEEREREE E
2 Salome, AZ. 85348 fR“‘° N*â€Â°â€˜Â°Â°"S°°““°¤l ctaaayn E oneraeor cou T
Uterine? DF anlzoma O _
1 ri 1*- TV .
3 ,..1;:;.,,, ..._E... ~.:,. ..
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7 .
8 James W. Field et. al., ) Case No.: CV03—2214—PI-IX-SRB
a )
9 Plaintiff, ) MOTION REQUESTING THE COURTS
) PERMISSION TO EXCEED PAGE
10 vs. ) LIMITATION AND RESPONSE TO LA
) PAZ COUNTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE
11 La Paz County et. al, ) PLA1NTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT
) OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL TO
12 R Defendant - ) LA PAZ DEFENDANT S QUALIFIED
I DEFENSE R
13 _
14 Comes now Plaintiff, mentioned above, in response to La Paz Defendants MOTION
15 TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL TO
S 16 LA PAZ DEFENDANT S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE. Plaintiff has set forth in the
17 following Memorandum of Points and authorities more fully reasons why Defendants motion should
18 be DENIED.
19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
20
21 The Defendants have requested the court order plaintiffs filing be stricken from the record
22 because, "Plaintz]fs have used over 24 pages to respond to the arguments raised in Defendants
23 Motion for Summon Judgment. All ofthe Arguments contained in both Plaintiffs Response to La
24 Paz Counties Motion for S wmnary Judgment and Plaintijs Separate Statement of F acts in
25 .
Case 2:03—cv—02214—SFlB Document 165 Filed O4/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
1 James W. Field Case No. CV03-2214-PHX-SRB
2 Pro Se Plaintif Exceed page limit
3 Support of Denial to La Paz Defendants Qualyied Immunity Defense, should have been addressed
4 in one response totaling no more than 1 7 pages "
5 Plaintiff apologizes to the Court and Opposing Counsel for the un—intended oversight relating
6 to the number of pages allowed when in responding to motions filed with the clerk. Not withstanding
7 the fact Plaintiff filed two separate documents not (1) one as Defendants indicate, had this Pro Se
8 Plaintiffs realized he needed the Courts Permission to exceed 17 pages in his response; Plaintiff
9 would have certainly filed a motion seeking the courts permission to exceed the total count normally
10 allowed by the rules.
11 As has been stated in the past, Plaintiffs have and continue to put forth a good faith effort to
19 _rgn|gy_with each and every rule set forth governing the rules of procedure in the United States
1; Federal District Court.
14 Plaintiffs herein request the Court ORDER their response and Separate Statement of Facts to
15 be accepted as filed, The Defendants by tiling the motion to strike are only "working the system" in
·~ 16 attempt to buy time to put together their reply, in the Alternative the Court could Grant Plaintiffs
17 permission to reduce the total page count to the max page limit allowed by the rules.
18 Defendant’s motion to strike is another showing of La Paz Defendants delay, and efforts to
19 cause un necessary expense to these plaintiffs as they seek redress within the courts for wrongs done
to them.
20
21 The La Paz Defendants are attempting to thwart the proceedings within the courts due to lack
92 of a meritorious defense to the charges facing them. Plaintiffs pray the Honorable Judge Susan R.
Q3 Bolton ORDER the defendants Motion to Strike Denied. Further sanction Defendants for their delay
24 by refusing to accept any reply to the Plaintiffs rsponse to La Paz Defendants Motion for Summary
25 Judgment and enter the Courts Decision upon the Merits effectively stopping the continual delays
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 165 Filed O4/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
s
1 James W. Field Case N0. CV03-2214-PHX-SRB
Pro Se Plaintzyff Exceed page limit
2
3 being worked upon the case by these defendants that have no realistic excuse for the actions
4 taken against the Plaintiffs Civil & Constitutional Rights.
5 Plaintiffs further point out they have submitted the referenced filing in # 12 type /
6 notwithstanding the above facts if ordered Pro se plaintiffs feel they can reduce the size type to the
7 allowed 10—point size. This should {although making the filing harder to read) bring this un-intended
8 error on plaintiffs part to within the legally allowed parameters set forth within the local mles.
9 For all the reasons set forth above Plaintiffs request the La Paz Defendants Motion to Strike
10 be denied, in the Alternative Order the Plaintiffs be allowed to reduce the filing to a size permitted by
H the Rules.
12 Dated this 18m day of March, 2006
13 '
P.O. Box 248
14 sareme, az. asses
James W. Field
15
U 16 ORIGINAL and One Cop
Filed this { ghday of 4 gg! ` 2006
17
A Copy pgthe foregoing F nt
18 This (3 ayof Aigai 20(Hto:
19 Gaona Law Firm
3101 N. Central Ave.
20 Suite 720 Phx. AZ. 85012
21 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C.
2901 N. Ccntral Ave.
Suite 800
22 phx. AZ. 85012 _
23 Br L
Tammy Doud
24 Plaintiffs Assistant
25 2
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 165 Filed O4/14/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB
Document 165
Filed 04/14/2006
Page 1 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB
Document 165
Filed 04/14/2006
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB
Document 165
Filed 04/14/2006
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms