Morgal v. Arpaio et al

Filing 163

ORDER, withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge in this case; all matters going forward shall remain with the District Judge for disposition as appropriate; Plaintiff's Notice to the Court 148 is denied as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/18/12. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12

Allan Kenneth Morgal,

13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.

15 Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors,
16
17

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 07-0670-PHX-RCB
O R D E R

18
19

On April 13, 2012, plaintiff pro se, Allan K. Morgal,

20 filed a “Notice to the Court” (Doc. 148), advising that the
21 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals awarded him costs in the amount
22 of $19.80.

Among other things, plaintiff requested that the

23 defendant, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, send a
24 remittance in that amount to a third-party.

Construing that

25 Notice as a motion, by order entered June 6, 2012, this court
26 ordered the defendant to file a response, if any, within
27 fifteen days of the date of entry of that order.
28 153) at 1:27-2:2.

Ord. (Doc.

1

Defendant timely filed its “Notice of Mailing Check for

2

Costs to Plaintiff[,]” showing that on June 13, 2012, it had

3

forwarded a check in the amount of $19.80 to plaintiff at his

4

address currently on file with the court.

5

157), exh. A thereto (Doc. 157-1).

6

acknowledged plaintiff’s request that the funds be sent to a

7

third-party, which it indicates is “outside the Arizona

8

Department of Corrections[] [(“ADOC”)]. Id. at 1:22.

9

Nonetheless, the defendant forward the funds directly to

See Not. (Doc.

The defendant

10

plaintiff because “it is unclear as to whether” delivery of

11

the funds to third-party outside ADOC “would comply with ADOC

12

Policy 900, which governs incarcerated individual’s funds.”

13

Id. at 1:22-24.

14

Given defendant’s remittance of $19.80 to plaintiff as

15

the costs of appeal, the court hereby DENIES as moot

16

plaintiff’s “Notice to the Court” (Doc. 148), which this

17

court previously construed as a motion.

18

On July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Request for

19

Discovery” (Doc. 161).

20

“Motion for Discovery,” the defendant shall have fourteen

21

(14) days from the date of entry of this order in which to

22

file and serve a response, if any, to that motion.

23

shall have seven (7) days after service of such response, if

24

any, to file a reply if he so desires.

25

Construing this “Request” as a

Plaintiff

In light of the rulings herein, and this court’s

26

familiarity with this case as evidenced in Morgal v Maricopa

27

County Bd. Of Sup’rs, 2012 WL 2029719 (D.Ariz. June 6,

28

2012)(Doc. 152),
-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate

2

Judge in this case.

3

with the District Judge for disposition as appropriate.

4
5
6

All matters going forward shall remain

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Notice to the
Court (Doc. 148) is denied as moot.
DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
s:\clr\prisoner\morgal148

-3-