Free Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

_ H
Ȣ
— FILED _____ LODGED
,____ F¥EC&1x·‘ED ___ COPY
1 James W. Field
P.O. Box 248 MAR g 1 3505
2 Salome, AZ. 85348
€—3L.!¥FlP< U 5 DISTRICT couar
3 optswttiir me rlstzerm _' g
BIZ.
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 James W. Field et. al., ee) Case No.: CVO3-2214-PHX-SRE
)
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, ) PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT
) OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DENLAL TO
12 Defendant ) LA PAZ DEFENDANT S QUALIFIED
) IMMUNITY DEFENSE
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
16 LA PAZ DEFENDANTS 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, "Plaint1ffs have used over 24 pages to respond to the arguments raised in Defendants
23 Motion for Summary Judgment. All ofthe Arguments contained in both Plaintiffs Response to La
24 Paz Counties Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Facts in
25
Case 2:03-cv—O2214-SRB Document 162-1- Filed O3/21/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 James W. Field Case No. CV03-2214·PHX·SRB
2 Pro Se Plaintiff Exceed page limit
3 Support of Denial to La Paz Defendants Qualified Immunity Defense, should have been addressed
4 in one response totaling no more than 17pages"
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 tiled a motion seeking the courts pemtission 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 gd faith effort to
12 gogplgwith each and every rule set forth governing the rules of procedure in the United States
13 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 systern" in
· 16 attempt to buy time to put together their reply, in the Alternative the Court could Grant Plaintiffs
S 17 permission to reduce the total page count to the max page limit allowed by the rules.
18 Defendanfs 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
22 of a meritorious defense to the charges facing them. Plaintiffs pray the Honorable Judge Susan R.
23 Bolton ORDER the defendants Motion to Strike Denied. Further sanction Defendants for their delay
24 by refusing to accept any reply to the Plaintiffs response 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 162 Filed O3/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
--.

_ 1
ef ‘
1 James W. Field Case N0. CV03-2214-PHX·SRB
Pro Se Plainujf Exceed page ibn:}
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 thejiling harder to read) bring this un-intended
8 error on plaintiff ’s part to within the legally allowed parameters set forth within the local rules.
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 PlaintiHs be allowed to reduce the filing to a size permitted by
U the Rules.
12 Dated this 18"' day of March, 2006
13 '
P.O. Box 248
14 Salome, AZ. 85348
James W. Field
15
in 16 ORIGINAL gid One Copy
Filed this _&_ day of Qty; 2005
17
A Copy of the foregoing sen
18 This Z2*"day of 2006 to :
19 Gaona Law Firm
3101 N. Central Ave.
20 Suite 720 Phx. AZ. 85012
21 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C.
2901 N. Central Ave.
Suite 800
22 1>1¤x.Az. ssoiz _
23 By
Tammy Doud
24 Plaintiffs Assistant
25
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 162 Filed O3/21/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 162

Filed 03/21/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 162

Filed 03/21/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 162

Filed 03/21/2006

Page 3 of 3