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)

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-