Fuller v. Granville et al

Filing 157

ORDER: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 154 is denied; the Clerk must strike Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 154 ) from the docket in this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/12/16.(REW)

Download PDF
1 2 KAB WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Samuel Louis Fuller, 10 11 12 No. CV 14-00020-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, v. ORDER Kari Jill Granville, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller, who is currently confined in Maricopa County 16 Fourth Avenue Jail, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 (Doc. 41.) 18 Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” (Doc. 154.) 19 In his “motion” Plaintiff asserts that “the matters [in the motion] are not intended for the 20 Court’s response, however the record is substantiative [sic] enough that Plaintiff believes 21 such contentions may well better appropriate the manner of proceedings this case styles, 22 by the Plaintiff’s ex parte communication to undersigned counsel on the record.” (Doc. 23 154 at 1.) Attached to the “motion” is a letter written to defense counsel, which contains 24 statements that could be construed as threats. Indeed, nothing in “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 25 Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” is relevant to the issues in this case and the “motion” 26 does not assist the Court in determining the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and does not add 27 to the substantive claims. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion and strike it from 28 the Record. 1 Moreover, the Court is compelled to inform Plaintiff that “harassing, coercive, 2 argumentative, threatening or similar statements to opposing counsel will not be 3 permitted.” Sanders v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2014 WL 2859135, No. CIV 13-1440-TUC- 4 CKJ, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2014). If Plaintiff does not proceed with civility in this 5 case, the Court will impose appropriate sanctions, including, if necessary, dismissal of his 6 complaint. See id. (citing cases where Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed as a sanction for 7 threats on defense counsel); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (a party must not present a motion to 8 the Court “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or 9 needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”). 10 IT IS ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” 11 (Doc. 154) is denied and the Clerk of the Court must strike “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion 12 with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” (Doc. 154) from the docket in this action. 13 Dated this 12th day of January, 2016. 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?