United States District Court, D. Arizona
C. BURY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is now fully briefed,
with the Reply being filed on May 14, 2019. In the Reply, the
Defendants assert for the first time that the case should be
dismissed because the Plaintiff commits a fraud on the Court.
The Plaintiff has filed a Sur-Response to the Reply. (Doc.
94.) The Court will allow the Sur-Response; there shall be no
Sur-Reply from Defendants. The Motion for Summary Judgment is
fully briefed and taken under advisement for disposition.
Plaintiff continues to complain that he is not being provided
copies of his legal documents by library staff. (Motion to
Compel/Motion to Stay (Doc. 91); see also e.g. Order
(Doc. 74) (granting Emergency Motion (Doc. 74) for extension
of time to file Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due
to same allegations). He asks the Court to compel Defendants
to comply with this Court's prior directive that
“Defendants  ensure that the law library staff
provides Plaintiff the legal copies to which he is entitled .
. .. ” (Order (Doc. 79) at 1.) He asks that the Court
stay its ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment until he
is provided the copies that are allegedly being withheld.
Plaintiff asks for a standing Order “encompassing all
documents in this case, not just the MSJ Response.”
Id. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior
Order denying him leave to file electronically because he
believes electronic filing would alleviate the need for the
librarian to make copies, which she allegedly is not doing
for him. (Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 93)).
“Electronic filing is not available at Plaintiff's
place of confinement, ASPC Baker Unit.” (Order (Doc.
85) at 1.) Reconsideration is denied.
is no basis to stay disposition of the fully briefed Motion
for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff acknowledges he has
been provided copies related to this motion in this case,
including his Response. (Motion to Compel/Motion to Stay
(Doc. 91) at 4.) The Court denies his request to stay
consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Court considers the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and his
Motion to Return Copy of Documents and Originals of Exhibits.
(Doc. 96.) Allegedly because the librarian refused to make
him copies, the Plaintiff asks the Court to provide him with
copies of his May 31, 2019 filings, and to return the
original documents he attached as exhibits to his May 31,
2019 filings. A cursory review of the numerous documents
attached to the various filings reflect numerous copies which
are so faint or lightly copied that they are illegible. The
Court notes that the Plaintiff's notations on the form
902-2 to please darken copies, (e.g. Docs. 93 at 11; 91-1 at
9), is one of the objections upon which the librarian relied
when refusing to make copies: “DO NOT WRITE ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOXES”; “DO NOT WRITE
OUTSIDE OF THE BOXES.” (Doc. 93 at 9 and 11.) If
Plaintiff cannot communicate such notes to the copier, the
Court imagines there shall need to be many resubmitted
requests before a successful copy is secured, if ever.
review of the original documents reflects that the originals
provided by the Plaintiff are very faint carbon copies; the
librarian cannot make copies which are any darker than the
originals. The Court has reviewed the stated reasons why
copies were not made for the Plaintiff and instead his
documents were stored in the unit property room or returned
to him. It appears the librarian will not process his copying
requests in part, and refuses to make any copies and returns
the copy-request form in its entirety, if the request, in
part, contained information, misinformation, or in some other
way was non-compliant. (Doc. 93 at 9 and 11.)
Court notes that the forms contain express instructions, such
as: “List each document separately. Forms packages
count as one item. Unrelated exhibits count separately.
ATTACH DOCUMENTS.” (Doc. 91-1 at 10.) The reasons for
not copying the Plaintiff's documents are not those
expressly stated on the forms. The Court does not intend to
determine whether as asserted by the Defendants, the ADC
employees have done nothing wrong in refusing to make the
requisite legal copies. This Court is interested only in
ensuring that this case proceeds. Therefore, the Defendants
shall provide copies to the Plaintiff of the documents filed
with the Court on May 31, 2019. The Court cannot return
originals of the exhibits because the originals when scanned
into the record were illegible, and the Court needs the
originals to review the Plaintiff's filings. The
Defendants shall secure legible copies of the originals and
provide them to the Plaintiff.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel/Stay
(Doc. 91) is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 93) is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Return Copy of
Documents and Originals of Exhibits (Doc. 96) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART, as directed above: Defendants shall
provide copies to the Plaintiff of all documents filed on May
31, 2019, including legible copies of the exhibit documents.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Seal Document
Exhibit A (Doc. 97) is GRANTED; the Clerk of the Court shall
file the Exhibit ...