Free Reply - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

T‘ ai "‘t ‘r·~-——~—-—.—...
1 James W. Field / MAR 0 6 ZUUE
P.0. Box 248 CL;_r__£; _
2 Salome, Az. 85348 , ;j,.l,§., gggrconar
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
n - 5
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 James W. Field et. al. , ) Case No.: CVU3-2214-PHX-SRB
9 Plaintiff, 3 PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO APS
) DEFENDANTS OBJECTION T0
10 vs. ) PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF FACTS
11 La Paz County et. al. , l
12 Defendant g
13
14 1. Comes now Plaintiffs mentioned above Submitting the following reply to APS Defendants
15 Objections to Plaintiffs Separate statement of facts.
16 2. Defendants complain; "the first two pages of Plaintiffs separate statement of facts is
17 argument, is not ir1 proper form, and is not properly supported by the record" "Plaintiffs are before
18 the court as forma pauperis Pro se Plaintiffs without the benefit of formal law school and have
19 formed their documents tiled throughout this action in a good faith effort to comply with the
20 Federal Rules as written. Plaintiffs while working from an extreme disadvantage due to
21 Defendants actions have strived to comply with the rules in every respect, and assure the court
22 any irregularity is without intent therefore beg this court to use its desecration to overlook any
23 procedural defects plaintiffs documents might contain. A Pro se complaint "however in artjitlly
24 plead must be held two less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawjvers" Haines v.
25 Kerner 404 US 519 (1972) Conley v. Gibson 355 US 41 (1957) Jimenez v. Beto 405 US 910
Case 2:O3—cv—O2214—SFiB Document 145- Filed O3/06/2006 Page 1 of 4


1 (1972) The Amisteacl 40 US 518 (1841) Furthermore, Rule 8(i) Provides that "pleadings shall be so
2 construed as to do substantial justice" And Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown 466 U.S.
3 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d 196, 82 U.S.L.W. 3751. “l/Ve frequently have stated that pro se
4 pleadings are to be given a liberal construction " APS Defendants for lack of a justifiable defense
5 are now attempting to get the court to effect a hyper interpretation ofthe Federal Rules of
6 Procedure to unjustly Defeat Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights.
7 3. Next Defendants contend: "Plaintiff merely alleges without support that the APS defendants
8 did not evaluate Plaintiffs electrical system and conspired with La Paz County to terminate Plaintiffs
9 electrical service".
10 4. Plaintiff statements are supported by the record (a copy is attached for the courts
11 connivance as exhibit 1) (See APS disclosure document email from Donald Lee Wilson dated
* 12 February 05, 2003 4* il )
13 "The utility shall not be required to restore service until the
conditions which resulted in the termination have been corrected
14 to the satisfaction ofthe utility. As the conditions which resulted
in the termination of service were primarily customer wiring
15 APS does not have jurisdiction for Electrical Code or Building Code
compliance. Therefore our standard that these conditions
16 “have been corrected to the satisfaction of the utility" is a clearance
jrom the authorigg having that jurisdiction which in this case is La Paz
17 Count);. "
18 5. Defendants Continue with the statement "APS defendants object to these statements as they
V 19 are merely Plaintiffs allegations, are not supported by the record, and are not statements of fact." (
20 See APS disclosure document, email from Donald Lee Wilson dated February 05, 2003 ‘|l 7 ) (a
21 copy is attached for the courts convenience)
22 "Mr. Field, please be assured that we did not take this action without
23 due consideration. I have reviewed your correspondence as well as
the documents APS has received Qom La Paz Coungy on this matter
24 `
25
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 145-2- Filed O3/06/2006 Page 2 of 4


1 6. As Plaintiffs have set forth above, "through APS very own disclosure d0cuments",
2 Plaintiffs statements are NOT merely allegations, that are not supported by the record, they
3 are statements of fact, with ample support in the record.
4 7. Next defendants counsel objects to statements 1 through 14 stating "the disclosed documents
5 demonstrate estimates for work that may (or may not) have been performed"
6 8, Plaintiff submitted accepted proposals into the record, including statements paid in full
7 See plaintiffs statement of facts items 3, 4, 5, & 6.
8 9. Defendants are correct, plaintiffs did not submit an affidavit from the electrician who
9 performed the work as he no longer works for said company. There was no way Plaintiffs could
10 reasonably foresee the need to have an electrician give them an affidavit he did the work.
11 However Plaintiff will attach affidavit of personal knowledge (re) this issue to this pleading.
12 10. Defendants continue in stating Statements 15 through 20 "have no relevance to the claims
. 13 against the APS defendants in this case”
14 11. The statements in 'll 10 are submitted by Plaintiffs as foundation themselves, to show the
· 15 utilities were in fact approved by The County by demonstrating, "that the County Defendants
16 after inspection of the Mobile Homes in question, approved their placement, as up to La Paz
17 County Code and the National Electric Code, including the electrical connections and supply
18 @;,_ “ therefore statements are relevant to show the actual condition of electrical service on
19 the propegy.
20 12. Defendants object to Statement 21 - "The inspection referred to in this statement was not
21 conducted by APS Defendants" APS defendants did not conduct any on site inspection as
'A n 22 evidenced by ‘|l 5 above this objection is without merit.
23 13. Defendants object to Statement 22 - "The work performed was not conducted by the APS n
_ 24 Defendants, nor inspected by the APS Defendants. See 'll 11 above, and the fact the work
_, 25 performed subject to this objection was indeed preformed by licensed electrician
14. Defendants object to Statement 23 - See il 11 above
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 145- Filed O3/06/2006 Page 3 of 4

\ K
1 · E T
. 1 15. Defendants object to Statements 24 through 34 - Plaintiff will include affidavit with this
t 2 reply stating when the pictures were taken, which are from different dates including the same
1 3 date power was terminated to property November 12, 2002
_ 4 16. Defendants object to Statement 35 - See 1T 11 above
5 17. Defendants object to Statements 36 through 38 — See Temporary power restoration
6 agreement dated November 19th 2002, outlining fact plaintiffs power was in good enough
7 condition to be restored within 6 days of termination, notwithstanding the fact, the power was
8 not an obvious hazard on the date of termination, further APS Defendants have not provided a
9 field inspection report conducted by APS Defendants on or before the termination date proving
10 the conditions of electrical service on the termination date.
1 11 18. Defendants object to statement 42 — Plaintiffs statement is proven by exhibit attached to
12 plaintiffs separate statement of facts. The picture of the APS Defendants computer screens
13 were submitted into the record by APS Counsel, so there should be no objection of the
14 Defendants part.
W 15 19. APS Defendants are frivolously objecting to Plaintiffs Statement of facts, when the facts are
16 as plain to see, as they are in this case, the Defendants would be well advised to stop the foot
17 dragging and consent to the facts as they actually happened. Plaintiff herein renews his cross rnotion
18 for Summary judgment in this action.
19
20 Dated this 1’" day of March, 2006 _
21 44}
.0. Box 248
22 Salome, AZ. 85348
23 James W. Field
24
n 25
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 1451- Filed O3/06/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 145

Filed 03/06/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 145

Filed 03/06/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 145

Filed 03/06/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 145

Filed 03/06/2006

Page 4 of 4