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-
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?