United States of America v. Griggs

Filing 82

ORDER denying Griggs' 79 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/30/09.(REW, )

Download PDF
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 27 28 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) David H. Griggs, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________) ) ) David H. Griggs, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) United States of America; Internal Revenue Service; and Jennifer Pardue, ) ) Revenue Officer, IRS, ) ) Respondents. ) ) United States of America, No. CV-08-1016PHX-DGC (Lead Case) No. MC-08-0103-PHX-DGC (Consolidated Case) ORDER Pending before the Court is Respondent Griggs's motion for leave to file a reply in support of his objection to Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of October 7, 2009. Dkt. #79. The Court has already filed an order regarding the R&R and Griggs's objection. Dkt. #81. Griggs filed the pending motion and lodged a proposed reply on November 24, 2009. Dkt. #79. Griggs admits that he filed his proposed reply after the deadline had passed, but 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 27 28 asserts that his delay should be excused because he is a pro se litigant. Id. at 1. Griggs does not say why he did not file a motion for extension of time before the deadline passed. Griggs is a pro se litigant, but he still must follow the rules of procedure. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record"); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.").1 Griggs is pro se by choice. The Court provided Griggs with the opportunity to receive appointed counsel if he complied with certain conditions, and he chose not to comply. Dkt. #40. Given that Griggs has shown no good cause for his delay in filing, the Court will deny his motion for leave to file a reply.2 The Court's order of November 25, 2009 adopting the R&R and requiring Griggs to comply with the Order Enforcing Summons (Dkt. #10) by January 15, 2010 remains in force. IT IS ORDERED that Griggs's motion for leave to file a reply (Dkt. #24) is denied. Dated this 30th day of November, 2009. Griggs is correct that the complaints of pro se litigants are "held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cruz v. Cardwell, 486 F.2d 550, 552 (8th Cir. 1973); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). This case law does not apply to Griggs's reply memorandum, where no pleadings are at issue. Even if it had considered Griggs's untimely reply, the Court still would have accepted the R&R and ordered Griggs to comply with the Order Enforcing Summons. -22 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?