Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

F - :
— [ % FILED WLODGED _
[_ _FlECEi¥\iED ___ COPV 5
Carlos A. Powell ' . _ F
#10090-023 wu 325 DUT 2 U 2005 p
;‘1gt¤;=M;-;3ggI·1 _ cuznx u s msmucr comm
· · OX ¤rsn=aroT or= Amzom A
Adelanto, CA 92301-5300 BY M _§EpUTy
In ro ia ersona: ‘*
' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTT COURT J
v_ DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Carlos Arthur Powell, ) iCIV O3»1819 PHx—JAT {LOA) n
.rrtl . looo 2rl.r-lPIhIHEfff".,--.; ...U . A.Hon, James A. Teilborg,rJudgei,m_ D_AY___ _____[_ _ _. _____ y;
I } ` » '
U ) , PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE ACCUSATION
v' ) BY COUNSEL/DEFENDANT CCA, AND NOTICE TO
` Cora Miles, et.a1., _ g THE COURT:
n _ Defendants. § `
{ · -COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Carlos Arthur Powell, hereto aftertsowell)
0 and respectfully files his objections to the absurd claim and allega—22
tions made by ccs 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,
‘ P1aintiff's motion for Ruling on all pending Motions and Motion (Re-
quest} for Sanctions against Defendants (Dkt. # 130). Plaintiff averse
I 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 p
- Phoenix, AZ 85012. _ A
_ Plaintiff further stipulates that each time counsel has any
N 1 2 I i
D 3 i C“ased2:O3—cv-01819-JAT Document137 FiIed10/20/2005 Page10f4

`
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 _
P the plaintiff would have filed 'disccvery' and would have located the
names of goes; way before the Defendants Does, and Ponce, and Miles` n
filed Summary Judgment. n
‘ Counsel has further alleged that they did not·receive the mail
,-U- .which, »,.. although»the~government has their—ow ~mail system; a pro—se, o·"‘i v"““"““‘
incarcerated individual can only "turn the mail over to the institu— i»-
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-
` P tesy to do the same. The misstake of deposition, and summary judgment l n
~ n issue the court just resolved, and the inadvertent failure to release i-H I?
lthe names of the 'Does' after numerous requests. p
However, plaintiff will ascertain that Counsel is served with
copy, when he infact appears for CCA, and glyph, which was named a
defendant in the Second Amended Complaint and has not.appeared.
" NOTICE TO THE COURT n
` 1 Plaintiff notices the court that_Corrections Corporation of
America ("CCA") has no standing in that counsel did not ackowledge
l on the motion captioned Defendant's Motion Reguesting The Court Order
Plaintiff to Copy Defendant CCA on All Pleadings, in that on that same
motion counsels clearly state twice, that they are attorneys for De-
W fendants Garcia and Miles, and never acknowledged any other defendant
*2
M in Oasei2:03—cv-01819-JAT Document137 Filed 10/20/2005 Page2of4

clients, therefore a non—appearing client/defendant has no standing
to request service of copies. If Counsel has filed appearance for
· CCA, glugh, 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 l n
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- _u_w—~
w~fMmm tratedwthat~thefemismno“reasonable opportunity for the mail to be in- A
g advertently miss directed. _ _
· In fact counsel's office had answered to the motion(s} he has
alleged not received. Motion to Quash/Strike Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff‘s Motion for Ruling on all pending
-Motions and Motion (Request) for Sanctions against Defendants. i —
·_,' Counsel seems to alter attitudes and omnipotence, when he finds
that magistrate judge is not able to rule on the matters before him. C
Thus the Motion for Order is an affront both to the plaintiff and to
this Honorable Court. -
n WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny _ I
the courtesy order filed attached to Defendantjs 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
n 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 di
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-
, _ Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Documeht 137 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 3 of 4 -.

half of counsel that has unlimited funds, and access to the internet,
and telephonic capabilities, plus has literally obstructed discovery I
and the recitifiaction of this case. CCA has been served each time
— Li-.
as if they had infact appeared through counsel.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF: n
I plaintiff Charles (Carlos) Arthur Powell, herein declare
_ pursuant to the statutes on prejury, that I have mailed copies of i
Camilla all documents~filed·to—counsel“Tim6thy"JY"E6$anoGsEi,“preipaidmwwmnwi -.-i mmumwmh
mail, and that at no time has any been returned, except when the
counsel returned said in his correspondence.
I declare this under subject of prejury, 28 U.S.C. S 1746,‘
2 this 17 date of October 2005. ‘ ‘
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE§ i`-> y ’ A
I hereby certify that a COPY of the foregoing has been served
on the following parties, via U.S. Mail pre—paid postage, by placing
same in the White Legal Mail Box furnished by U.S. Justice Dept. at
Victorville FCI—l, this [EZ day of October 2005.
RICHARD WEARE, CLERK:
United States District Court
401 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003 _
Copy of foregoing mailed this date to : J i .
Honorable James A. Teilborg n
U.S. District Court _
_ 401 West Washington 1
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Daniel P._Struck, Timothy J. Bojanowski o r
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85012
;;;g En aggilliary copy for second serving Counsel through clerk.
-C&IL3_\A. Powell, pro-se. 4 f4 _·
Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT D0cAbment137 FnIed10/20/2005 Page 0

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 137

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 137

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 137

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 137

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 4 of 4