United States District Court, D. Arizona
R. Zapata Senior United States District Judge.
multiple occasions the Court warned Plaintiff that even a pro
se litigant must attempt to comport with the Rules.
See, e.g., Docs. 4, 7, 25, 39, 50, 132,
156, 228, and 307. The Court also warned about the
repercussions for violating the Rules or a Court Order.
See, e.g., Doc. 4 (“If Plaintiff
fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order,
including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action
without further notice.”) (citing Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).
See also, Doc. 156 at pg. 4, n. 6 (warning that
“if Plaintiff continues to file multiple motions
despite being plainly warned, in prior orders, that continued
failure to follow the court's Local Rules, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court's orders would
result in the imposition of sanctions, including the
involuntary dismissal of the case with prejudice ...
then the Court has the discretion to dismiss the
matter.”) (emphasis in original).
has violated the Rules before and appropriate sanctions were
imposed. See, e.g., Doc. 218 (striking
non-compliant filings from the record) and Doc. 257
(summarily terminating legally non-cognizable motions).
incarcerated pro se status caused numerous difficulties
adjudicating this case. See, e.g., Docs.
97, 102, 156 and 192. Therefore, the Court sought and
appointed counsel for Plaintiff. See Doc. 271. But
Plaintiff continued to pester their attorney to file
frivolous motions contesting matters already adjudicated, and
the attorney-client relationship eventually, irreconcilably,
severed. See Doc. 321 (“Plaintiff's
relationship with the Court-appointed counsel deteriorated
after Plaintiff kept asking for them to file frivolous
continues to belabor the Court with unauthorized filings,
many which attempt to re-litigate matters already
adjudicated. See, e.g., Doc. 323
(“Motion for: Court Order, directing defendants to have
plaintiff returned to AZ.”); Doc. 325 (“Motion
for Contempt”); Doc. 326 (“Motion for:
Reconsideration of ‘part of' Order limiting
discovery”); and Doc. 327 (“Motion Requesting
that Dkt #321 be clarified”).
Court specifically warned Plaintiff about filing premature
motions for summary judgment. See Docs. 156 and 270
(finding that “Plaintiff has-again-filed a procedurally
deficient motion for summary judgment”). Despite that
warning, and the Court explaining the proper procedure to
Plaintiff, see id., Plaintiff has again filed for
summary judgment in “clear” violation of Court
Orders. See, e.g., Doc. 328 at pg. 2.
matter has lingered in the federal courts for over four
years, delayed (in part) because of Plaintiff's irregular
motions. The case docket-now thousands of complied
pages-contains countless irrelevant, illegible, and
indecipherable documents. A barrage of rule violations has
prejudiced Defendants by creating uncertainty as to when a
response is required to one of Plaintiff's motions. And
less drastic measures to curtail the extrajudicial behavior
have not stopped Plaintiff's non-compliance with the
Rules, which threatens the probity of the adjudicative
“dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should
only be imposed in extreme circumstances, ” this case
warrants dismissal. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (Doc.
40) is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Counsel (Doc.
318), Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 319), “Motion
for Court Order, Directing Defendants to have Plaintiff
Returned to Arizona” (Doc. 323), “Motion for
Contempt” (Doc. 325), Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
326), and “Motion Requesting that Doc. 321 be
Clarified” (Doc. 327) are TERMINATED as moot.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to
“Continue Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Doc. 328) is TERMINATED as moot.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment
and close this civil action.