Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard Attorney General Susanna C. Pineda, Bar No. 011293 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kristofer M. Seneca, No. CV 03-1350 PHX SRB (ECV) Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, et al., Defendants. Defendants1, and undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, and asks this court to deny Plaintiff's request. Rule 11 is violated by the filing of a pleading when the party or counsel knew, or should have known by such investigation of fact and law as was reasonable and feasible under all the circumstances, that the claim or defense was insubstantial, groundless, frivolous, or otherwise unjustified. See Boone v. Superior Court, 145 Ariz. 235, 241, 700 P.2d 1335, 1341 (1985) (mirroring Federal Rule 11). Plaintiff can make no showing that Defendants or their counsel have mislead this court. It appears that Plaintiff, having received satisfaction in the form of a new religious policy that does not place a numerical limitation on the number of religious items he can possess, is again unsatisfied. He does not like the application of this new policy and would
1

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 11(c)(1)(A)

ADC Director Schriro, Mike Linderman, Sandra Walker, and Wanda Hofmann.

Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB

Document 125

Filed 12/19/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

like to continue his lawsuit on new issues that he believes have arisen since the policy has changed. First, Plaintiff complains that Defendants have mislead this Court into dismissing his RLUIPA claim by changing the allegedly offensive religious policy but making it impossible for him to obtain the items he claims are necessary for the practice of his religion. Specifically, he claims that the items he has been approved to use are unobtainable due to size restrictions placed on the items by ADC. However, Plaintiff's claims are unsubstantiated by any evidence and merely ask this Court to believe that particular items cannot be found in the sizes allowed by ADC. However, one only needs do a brief search of the internet to find a web site showing that the items Plaintiff has been approved to possess actually exist in sizes that meet ADC specification. For instance, following a two minute search, undersigned counsel was able to locate the two items mentioned in Plaintiff's motion that satisfy ADC's size limitations. See www.shop-ofmeditation.com. At this website, counsel found a Zabuton meditation cushion measuring 2"X25"X34" and a 12"x8" Zafu meditation pillow--both items within the ADC's size limitations noted by Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff attacks the alleged recent denial of some particular items, i.e., tea, and ADC's policy restricting religious items to those that can fit into the designated box. Ironically, it was Plaintiff who advised this Court that a change in the religious property policy that would allow him to possess as many religious items that would fit into the then smaller designated religious item box as long as the item did not violate any security interest would satisfy his claim. Having received this change, he is now unsatisfied. Additionally, his new claims against ADC's religious property policy were not ripe at the time he brought his lawsuit. He should not be able to piggy-back new claims (the denial of a specific item for security reasons) to a suit that is moot. 2
Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB Document 125 Filed 12/19/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Finally, Plaintiff apparently believes that a Rule 11 motion is another opportunity to attack this Court's refusal to hear his apparent book claim brought in Count III. (See Dkt. 8, 60, 76, 95, 120.) Plaintiff should not be allowed to repeatedly attack this Court's decision by merely changing the name of his motion. For the reasons stated above, undersigned counsel respectfully request that this court deny Plaintiff's request for Rule 11 sanctions. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of December, 2005. Terry Goddard Attorney General

s/ Susanna C. Pineda Susanna C. Pineda Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Original e-filed this 19th day of December, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to:

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB Document 125 Filed 12/19/2005 Page 3 of 3

Kristofer M. Seneca #113423 ASPC - Eyman - Meadows Unit P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232-3300 s/ Colleen S. Jordan Secretary to: Susanna C. Pineda IDS03-0340/RSK:G03-03514 #939198