Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03613/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03613-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Kennedy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Honeywell Aerospace, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3613-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it four letters from plaintiff and the clerk shall accept them for

filing in this case. The first letter can be construed as a motion for reconsideration. We also

have before us defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's first letter (doc. 28), which we consider

a response to the motion for reconsideration. A response to a motion for reconsideration is

not allowed under the rules unless ordered by the court. LRCiv 7.2(g). We ordered no

response, therefore we will not consider this motion and it is denied (doc. 28). 

The order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant and

against the plaintiff was docketed on June 6, 2006. Under LRCiv 7.2(g), a motion for

reconsideration "shall be filed no later than ten days after the filing of the order" unless there

is good cause shown. Here, although undated, the letters were received in September 2006,

some three months after the order was filed. Just as the defendant is bound to follow the

local and federal rules, as discussed above, so too is plaintiff. 

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 31 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

When we considered the defendant's motions to dismiss, we carefully evaluated the

allegations contained in the complaint and attempted to find legal theories that could survive

the motion. However, plaintiff's original and amended complaints contained only narrative

accounts of the circumstances surrounding his termination from employment and the

deprivation of his benefits. Plaintiff failed to frame valid legal theories to support his

allegations. For example, plaintiff described a claim as "Denial to plaintiff of using due

medical benefits." Amended Complaint at 4. More is required to successfully present a

claim in court. The court and the parties are bound to follow rules that require a complaint

to be written in such a way as to inform the defendants of the legal claims against them so

that they may adequately present a defense. 

We advised plaintiff in our first order that he needed to "link factual allegations to

actual legal claims." Order of March 16, 2006 at 2. We recommended that plaintiff seek the

advice of counsel and gave him an opportunity to amend his complaint. We provided

suggestions of what was needed in an amended complaint to avoid dismissal of his claims.

But plaintiff rejected our advice and submitted an amended complaint that was largely

unchanged from the original. Plaintiff's amended complaint failed to adequately inform the

defendant of the claims against it; therefore, we were duty-bound to dismiss the complaint.

Our civil justice system has been designed by lawyers for the use of lawyers. The

procedural and substantive rules are complex, and thus without a lawyer, a party has a small

chance of success. We understand plaintiff's disappointment, but about the only way claims

can be presented in court is through a lawyer. We further understand that plaintiff is

suffering from serious health issues and lack of funds, but the system addresses these

circumstances as well. Community legal services may provide discounted or free legal

services to plaintiffs with valid claims, who are unable to afford a lawyer. Equitable tolling

provisions may allow a party who is too sick or otherwise incapacitated additional time to

meet a filing deadline. But consultation with a lawyer is essential in understanding and

presenting these complicated claims.

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 31 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

We still recommend that plaintiff seek the advice of counsel. We had earlier

recommended the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association.

Plaintiff could also consider contacting Community Legal Services at 602-258-3434.

Because we are bound by rules of law, construing one of the letters as a motion for

reconsideration, IT IS ORDERED DENYING it. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING

defendant's motion to strike (doc. 28). 

DATED this 29th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 31 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3