United States of America v. Smith

Filing 24

ORDER denying 20 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/8/11.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Robert F. Smith, Sr.,

13

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV10-2358 PHX DGC
ORDER

14
15

Pro se Defendant Robert F. Smith, Sr. moves for reconsideration of this Court’s

16

March 22, 2011, order (“the Order”) denying his motion to dismiss (Doc. 19). Doc. 20.

17

Defendant argues the Order incorrectly noted that he did not file a reply bringing forth

18

evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity attending Plaintiff’s filing of this case, and

19

requests the Order be reconsidered in light of the reply appearing on the docket with a filing

20

date of March 21, 2011. Id.

21

Pro se plaintiffs are expected to abide by the rules of the court in which they litigate.

22

Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s

23

response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed and served by mail on February 28,

24

2011. Doc. 15 at 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Defendant had seven days within which to

25

reply, LRCiv. 7.2(d), and this period was automatically extended to ten days due to service

26

by mail, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Defendant asserts that his reply was mailed on March 18, 2011

27

(Doc. 20 at 1:35-36), several days beyond the reply deadline mentioned above. Defendant

28

has not shown good cause for the delay either in the reply or in the motion for

1

reconsideration. Docs. 18, 20. The reply was, therefore, untimely and the Court properly

2

declined to consider it.1

3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) is denied.

4

DATED this 8th day of April, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if the reply had been timely, its arguments are not persuasive and it proffers
no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in Plaintiff’s filing of this case.
-2-