Ortega v. Clinton et al

Filing 40

ORDER, Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings 37 , is hereby STRICKEN without prejudice; Petitioner shall re-file her Response on or before 8/1/11 or Respondent's 35 , 34 Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings may be summarily granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/25/11. (REW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Olga Clarissa Ortega, 10 11 Petitioner, vs. 12 13 14 Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-11-0140-PHX-LOA ORDER 15 On June 28, 2011, Petitioner filed her Response to Respondent’s Motion to 16 Stay Civil Proceedings. (Doc. 37) The Court has previously ordered Petitioners’ counsel 17 to use proper capitalization in the caption of this case as required by LRCiv.7.1(a)(3), 18 doc. 18 at 3, and has ordered three times that all counsel to comply with the District 19 Court’s Local Rules. (Docs. 23 at 2-3, 26 at 5, 33 at 6) Petitioner’s Response to 20 Respondent’s Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings violates the District of Arizona’s Local 21 Rules by using all capital letters in the Response’s caption and unauthorized bolding. 22 The Ninth Circuit has “explain[ed], yet again, the importance of following a 23 district court’s local rules. ‘District courts have broad discretion in interpreting and 24 applying their local rules.’” Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 25 2010) (quoting Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)). Local 26 rules have “the force of law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710 27 (2010) (quoting. Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929)). They “are binding upon the 28 1 parties and upon the district court, and a departure from local rules that affects substantial 2 rights requires reversal.” Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 3 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although technical, 4 minor violations, counsels’ errors demonstrate a continued practice of failure to give 5 appropriate consideration to prior court orders and the Local Rules which may eventually 6 result in a more egregious violation, resulting in possible prejudice to the adverse party or 7 unnecessary delay in this litigation. 8 On the Court’s own motion, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to 10 11 Stay Civil Proceedings, doc. 37, is hereby STRICKEN without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall re-file her Response to 12 Respondent’s Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings on or before Monday, August 1, 2011 13 which shall be substantively identical to her June 28, 2011 filing except it shall comply in 14 all respects with this Order and the Local Rules (i.e., use of proper capitalization, no 15 bolding in the header or case number, and elimination of the unauthorized statement: 16 “Immigration File No.:A020 511 007 ”) or Respondent’s Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings 17 may be summarily granted. Future violations of the Local Rules may result in more 18 severe sanctions against Petitioner or her counsel. 19 DATED this 25th day of July, 2011. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?