Knaubert #034045 v. Unknown Party

Filing 34

ORDER that the Clerk is directed to strike from the record Plaintiff's "Motion to File Criminal Charges" (Doc. 20 ), "Motion to Explain on Pica Typewriter for the Courts" (Doc. 22 ), "Motion for Legal Release Due to L aws and Facts of This Case" (Doc. 23 ), "Motion for [Illegible] of Court Case on Bench Trial" (Doc. 24 ), "Motion for [Illegible] on 5-7 Issues Not Yet Brought" (Doc. 25 ), "Motion for Correction" (Doc. 26 ) , "Motion for Immed[iat]e Release Again" (Doc. 27 ), "Motion for Requesting Instruction from the Courts" (Doc. 31 ), and "Motion to Explain were About and What Transpired Since Last Answer from the Courts in July, August 2014" (Doc. 33 ). Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 19 ) for a complaint form and extension of time is granted. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Courts July 8, 2014 Orde r. Clerk must enter dismissal with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's Motion for Copies (Doc. 30 ) is denied. Plaintiff's "Motion for Exten[s]ion of Time" (Doc. 32 ) is denied as moot. The Clerk must mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court's July 8, 2014 Order (Doc. 18 ), including the court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 10/31/14. (Attachments: # 1 Document 18 with PCR Form)(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Knaubert,

10
11
12

No. CV 14-0158-PHX-SMM (SPL)
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Last Forced Medication Committee,

13

Defendant.

14
15

On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Knaubert, who is confined in the Arizona

16

State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April 22, 2014 Order,

18

the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because

19

Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended

20

complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff

21

filed his First Amended Complaint. In an Order dated July 8, 2014, the Court dismissed

22

the First Amended Complaint and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended

23

complaint.

24
25

twelve motions. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. 19) requesting a new

26

complaint form and a 30-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. That same

27

day, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to File Criminal Charges” (Doc. 20). Since then, Plaintiff

28

JDDL-K

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. However, he has filed

has filed a “Motion to Explain on Pica Typewriter for the Courts” (Doc. 22), a “Motion

1

for Legal Release Due to Laws and Facts of This Case” (Doc. 23), a “Motion for

2

[Illegible] of Court Case on Bench Trial” (Doc. 24)1, a “Motion for [Illegible] on 5-7

3

Issues Not Yet Brought” (Doc. 25), a “Motion for Correction” (Doc. 26), a “Motion for

4

Immed[iat]e Release Again” (Doc. 27), a “Motion for Copies of All Paper to and from

5

the Courts as Mine were Stolen or Lost by D.O.C.” (Doc. 30), a “Motion for Requesting

6

Instruction from the Courts” (Doc. 31), a “Motion for Exten[s]ion of Time” (Doc. 32),

7

and a “Motion to Explain Were About and What Transpired Since Last Answer from the

8

Courts in July, August 2014” (Doc. 33).

9

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 19) for an extension of time to file

10

an amended complaint and for a new complaint form. Plaintiff will have 30 days from

11

the date of this Order to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s July 8,

12

2014 Order. Plaintiff’s additional motion requesting an extension of time (Doc. 32) will

13

be denied as moot.

14

I.

Unresponsive Motions

15

Most of Plaintiff’s other motions are not responsive to the Court’s July 8, 2014

16

Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, do not request specific relief from

17

the Court, or contain rambling narratives that appear unrelated to Plaintiff’s initial

18

Complaint.2 Moreover, because there is currently no pleading before the Court (the

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JDDL-K

1

This document is listed on the docket as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
However, it does not appear that Plaintiff is requesting counsel. His handwriting is not
clear, but it appears he wrote that he “request[s] on oral arraignment for case #00158SMM.”
2

As the Court advised Plaintiff in the April 22 and July 8, 2014 Orders, it is
improper for a party to communicate directly with court personnel. Any request for
action by the Court must be in the form of a motion that complies with the Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the Local Rules).
Simply mailing a letter to the Clerk of Court, the judge, or any court personnel is
unacceptable. Similarly, labeling a document as a “motion,” without an appropriate
request for relief, is also unacceptable. Any future documents that do not comply with
the Court’s Orders or Rules will be stricken from the record and will be returned to
Plaintiff.
-2-

1

Complaint having been dismissed for failure to state a claim and no amended complaint

2

having as yet been filed), general motions practice is inappropriate. Accordingly, the

3

Court will direct the Clerk of Court to strike from the record those motions which the

4

Court finds unnecessary or irrelevant to Plaintiff’s compliance with the Order to amend

5

his Complaint. Those are Plaintiff’s “Motion to File Criminal Charges” (Doc. 20),

6

“Motion to Explain on Pica Typewriter for the Courts” (Doc. 22), “Motion for Legal

7

Release Due to Laws and Facts of This Case” (Doc. 23), “Motion for [Illegible] of Court

8

Case on Bench Trial” (Doc. 24), “Motion for [Illegible] on 5-7 Issues Not Yet Brought”

9

(Doc. 25), “Motion for Correction” (Doc. 26), “Motion for Immed[iat]e Release Again”

10

(Doc. 27), “Motion for Requesting Instruction from the Courts” (Doc. 31), and a “Motion

11

to Explain were About and What Transpired Since Last Answer from the Courts in July,

12

August 2014” (Doc. 33).

13

II.

Motion for Copies

14

In his Motion for Copies, Plaintiff states that all paperwork “is either stolen or lost

15

by D.O.C.” and he asks that the Court “replace it all at [his] expense and tack it on [his]

16

bill with the courts.” This motion will be denied except that the Court will direct the

17

Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the July 8, 2014 Order for guidance on filing an

18

amended complaint. For any other documents, the Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per

19

page for reproducing any record or paper. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees ¶ 4,

20

foll. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Plaintiff may obtain copies of documents filed in this case by

21

submitting a written request accompanied by pre-payment of the 50 cents per page copy

22

fee.

23
24

Re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526, 1527 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does

25

not give a litigant a right to have documents copied and returned to him at government

26

expense”); Robinson v. Miscellaneous, No. 09C0148, 2009 WL 1649697, at *4 (E.D.

27

Wis. June 11, 2009); Joseph v. Director of Circle K Corp., No. CV97-2214-PHX-RCB,

28

JDDL-K

Plaintiff should note that an inmate has no right to free copies of pleadings. See In

2008 WL 4838712, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2008). Further, the Ninth Circuit has rejected

-3-

1

any constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying. See Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d

2

921, 923 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), superseded on other grounds, 948 F.2d 517 (9th

3

Cir. 1991) (per curiam); and Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989)

4

(rejecting any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying) (citing Jones v.

5

Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) (“[B]road as the constitutional concept of

6

liberty is, it does not include the right to xerox.”)).

7

“The Supreme Court has declared that ‘the expenditure of public funds [on behalf

8

of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .’” Tedder v.

9

Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426

10

U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes the

11

Court to pay for service of process on behalf of an indigent litigant and, in certain cases,

12

to pay the costs of printing the record on appeal and preparing a transcript of proceedings,

13

but the statute does not authorize the Court to pay the costs for an indigent litigant’s

14

general copy requests. Cf. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915 does

15

not authorize the district courts to waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses);

16

Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12 (same).

17

III.

Warnings

18

A.

19

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his

20

release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he

21

intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to

22

comply may result in dismissal of this action.

Release

23
24

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with

25

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion

26

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in

27

dismissal of this action.

28

JDDL-K

B.

....

Address Changes

-4-

1

C.

2

Because Plaintiff is currently confined in ASPC-Eyman and this case is subject to

3

General Order 14-08, Plaintiff is not required to submit an additional copy of every filing

4

for use by the Court, as would ordinarily be required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure

5

5.4. If Plaintiff is transferred to a prison other than ASPC-Eyman, he will be notified of

6

the requirements regarding copies for the Court that are required for inmates whose cases

7

are not subject to General Order 14-08.

Copies

8

D.

9

Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a

10

claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies

11

identified in the Court’s July 8, 2014 Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under

12

the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

13

prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under

14

28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or

15

detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that

16

was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

17

which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

18

physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Possible “Strike”

Under the 3-strikes provision, a

19

E.

20

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order and the

21

Court’s July 8, 2014 Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action

22

without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an

23

action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

24

IT IS ORDERED:

25

(1)

Possible Dismissal

The Clerk of Court is directed to strike from the record Plaintiff’s “Motion

26
27

Courts” (Doc. 22), “Motion for Legal Release Due to Laws and Facts of This Case”

28

JDDL-K

to File Criminal Charges” (Doc. 20), “Motion to Explain on Pica Typewriter for the

(Doc. 23), “Motion for [Illegible] of Court Case on Bench Trial” (Doc. 24), “Motion for

-5-

1

[Illegible] on 5-7 Issues Not Yet Brought” (Doc. 25), “Motion for Correction” (Doc. 26),

2

“Motion for Immed[iat]e Release Again” (Doc. 27), “Motion for Requesting Instruction

3

from the Courts” (Doc. 31), and “Motion to Explain were About and What Transpired

4

Since Last Answer from the Courts in July, August 2014” (Doc. 33).

5

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 19) for a complaint form and extension of time is

6

granted. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended

7

complaint in compliance with the Court’s July 8, 2014 Order.

8

(3)

If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the

9

date of this Order, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of

10

dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a

11

“strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

12

(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies (Doc. 30) is denied.

13

(5)

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Exten[s]ion of Time” (Doc. 32) is denied as moot.

14

(6)

The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s July 8, 2014

15

Order (Doc. 18), including the court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a

16

prisoner.

17

DATED this 31st day of October, 2014.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JDDL-K

-6-