Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

;”'”! ,‘“j¤¤@&MMmHwHRHmMA¤Dmmm
w“;E&¢A¥W0‘UMmLkmuB5nn
»~¤¤1>>¤.macTr0 an J
m»;mNC& {ful _n {_ _, @§"“f`f"””'[g§§Q`g§,W
¤ W {Rub Ima r_I-uq-,. - nn, trx rl-ak
caries A. Paweii -—-·‘L [*‘·’—~ KFOPY
#10090—023 D/U 325
Victorville Fc:-1 _ BEC 12 2995
P.O. Box #5300 Q ¢_h 1_ ___ _w _
Adglantcf CA 92301-5300 i ¤..,_L,Fi1l,i.`,-5--5;:5-*,1-3EQE1ZiUZBURF
nnsnueamrnwuoma
&0M____2_ _jQ0;mHY
In propia persona: "` `"_I“"“
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Carlos Arthur Powell, ) CIV 03·18l9 PHX—JAT (LOA)
~ .. . .. ..-. ...`. . . .. .. ,_-.,_ ' l J _
Plaintiff, ) Hon. James A. Tei borg, udge
)
) PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE ACCUSATION
v' ) BY COUNSEL/DEFENDANT CCA, AND NOTICE TO
Cora Miles, et.al., g THE COURT:
Defendants. ; _
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Carlos Arthur Powell, hereto after(Powell)
and respectfully files his objections to the absurd claim and allega-
tions made by CCA and counsel dated October 6, 2005, alleging that the
plaintiff has failed to supply the defendant "CCA" and counsel with a
copy of plaintiff's Motion to Quash/Strike Defendant‘s Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment on February 28, 2005 (Dkt.# lll), and On May 13, 2005, a
Motion for Court's Clarification (Dkt. # 121), also On July 13, 2005,
Plaintiff’s motion for Ruling on all pending Motions and Motion (Re-
r"
quest) for Sanctions against Defendants (Dkt. # 130). Plaintiff avers
that the above motions were infact mailed through U.S, Mail, to the
following address:
Timothy J. Bojanowski, Bar # 022126
2901 North Central Avenue Suite # 800
Phoenix, AZ 85012.
Plaintiff further stipulates that each time counsel has any
1
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 149 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 1 0f 4

I adverse ruling, which ofcourse was made by the Honorable Judge, in-
stead of the magistrate, he finds some out—landish rationale to file
for the purpose of cover—up.
First and foremost, CCA, has never file appearance, in as much
as the defendant has never made a showing. If the defendant had done so
the plaintiff would have filed 'discovery' and would have located the
names of Qpgsi way before the Defendants Does, and Ponce, and Miles
filed Summary Judgment.
Counsel has further alleged that they did not receive the mail j
which, although the government has their own mail system, a pro—se,
incarcerated individual can only "turn the mail over to the institu-
tional mail room staff, and at that point it is filed"... (see Mail Box
Rule; Houston v. Lack, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988)). Plaintiff has each
and ever time served copy by mail to counsel, who has not had the cour-
tesy to do the same. The misstake of deposition, and summary judgment
issue the court just resolved, and the inadvertent failure to release ‘
the names of the 'Does' after numerous requests.
However, plaintiff will ascertain that Counsel is served with
copy, when he infact appears for CCA, and glugh, which was named a I
defendant in the Second Amended Complaint and has not appeared. {
NOTICE TO THE COURT ‘
Plaintiff notices the court that Corrections Corporation of _
America ("CCA") has no standing in that counsel did not ackowledge
on the motion captioned Defendant's Motion Reguesting The Court Order
Plaintiff to Copy Defendant CCA on All Pleadings, in that on that same
j motion counsels clearly state twice, that they are attorneys for De-
fendants Garcia and Miles, and never acknowledged any other defendant
2
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 149 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 2 of 4

clients, therefore a non—appearing client/defendant has no standing
to request service of copies. If Counsel has filed appearance for
CCA, Gluch, the counsel never served that appearance or acknowledge-
ment on plaintiff to allow discovery.
Counsel has not stated that plaintiff failed to serve the other
defendants, Miles Ponce, Garcia, who apparently he alleges he represents
and, counsel failed to furnish an affidavit concerning that he failed
to receive these documents at his office. Since there is more than one
attorney and because the office has many aids, counsel has not illus-
C. trated that there is no~reasonable·opportunity‘for the mail to be in- i
advertently miss directed. i
In fact counsel's office had answered to the motion(s) he has i
alleged not received. Motion to Quash/Strike Defendant's Motion for p
Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling on all pending _
Motions and Motion {Request) for Sanctions against Defendants. j
Counsel seems to alter attitudes and omnipotence, when he finds i
that magistrate judge is not able to rule on the matters before him. g
Thus the Motion for Order is an affront both to the plaintiff and to i
this Honorable Court. E
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny
the courtesy order filed attached to Defendantfs CCA motion, and not
establish that simply claiming defendant CCA had not received a copy .
constitutes necessity for a court order on first incident. The Court
is assured that copies were mailed, and never returned to plaintiff.
Plaintiff further states that he will from this date not only
mail Mr. Bojanowski a copy, but will also send pre—paid addressed i
envelope to the clerk of court , so that the Court will be aware for {
counsel's next claims and thus resolve one of many innuendos on be-
il 3
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 149 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 3 of 4

-· . S
‘ half of counsel that has unlimited funds, and access to the internet,
and telephonic capabilities, plus has literally obstructed discovery Q
Q
and the recitifiaction of this case. CCA has been served each time E
as if they had infact appeared through counsel. Q
E
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF: i
I plaintiff Charles (Carlos) Arthur Powell, herein declare 5
pursuant to the statutes on prejury, that I have mailed copies cfu Ir. E
all documents filedwtoicounselvTimothyiJ. Bojanowski, pre—paid "‘"‘ [ ` U
s
I
mail, and that at no time has any been returned, except when the _ i
counsel returned said in his correspondence. _ g
1 i
I declare this under subject of prejury, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, i
this 17 date of October 2005. I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I
I hereby certify that a COPY of the foregoing has been served i
on the following parties, via U.S. Mail pre-paid postage, by placing 3
same in the White Legal Mail Box furnished by U.S. Justice Dept. at 2
Victorville FCI-1, this _%;Zday of October 2005. .
RICHARD WEARE, CLERK:
United States District Court
401 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Copy of foregoing mailed this date to : i
Honorable James A. Teilborg
U.S. District Court
401 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Daniel P. Struck, Timothy J. Bojanowski
2901 N RCentral Avenue, Suite 800
Phoe x, AZ 85012
/witffanfauxilliai?2copy for second serving Counsel through clerk.
Car ° . Powell, pro—se.
4
‘ 4 f4
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT D0cument149 FnIed12/12/2005 Page 0

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 149

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 149

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 149

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 149

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 4 of 4