Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00999/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00999-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angel Alberto Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Qwest Communications, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0999-PHX-LOA

ORDER

Plaintiff’s timely-filed First Amended Complaint sufficiently complies with Rule

8(a), FED.R.CIV.P., and this Court’s May 22, 2007 Order to authorize service of the

Amended Complaint by the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) on Defendant. Plaintiff

also filed on June 7, 2007 a Motion to Speak with the Judge about his complaint.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Speak with the Judge “regarding [his] complaint” is

premature, inappropriate without the presence of defense counsel and, candidly, unnecessary

at this time. This Motion will be denied without prejudice. Speaking with the assigned trial

judge about the Complaint or any aspect of the merits of Plaintiff’s claim outside the

presence of all parties or their counsel is a prohibited ex-parte communication with the Court.

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton ex rel. County of Maricopa, 194 Ariz. 68, 977 P.2d 790,

794 (Ariz. 1999) (“[W]ith some exceptions, ‘all parties or their lawyers shall be included in

communications with a judge.’” (citation omitted)); ER 3.5(b), Arizona Rules of Professional

Conduct, Ariz. R.S.Ct. 42, 17A A.R.S. ("A lawyer [or an unrepresented party] shall not: (a)

Case 2:07-cv-00999-LOA Document 9 Filed 06/08/07 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 -

seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official of a tribunal by means

prohibited by law; . . .") Like the lawyer in San Carlos Apache Tribe, Plaintiff is cautioned

against initiating ex parte communications with an adjudication judge. Id. at 796. At the

Rule 16 scheduling conference and in the presence of defense counsel, Plaintiff will have an

opportunity to address the assigned trial judge.

Because of the difficulties in representing himself and the disadvantages Plaintiff

will have in litigation against a lawyer, Plaintiff should seek representation and the advice

of counsel before proceeding further in this court. If Plaintiff does not have a lawyer, he may

wish to contact the Volunteer Lawyers Program sponsored by Community Legal Services

and the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-258-3434, call the Lawyer Referral Service

of the State Bar of Arizona at (602) 257-4434 or open the State Bar of Arizona web site at

www.azbar.org and click on “Lawyers Helping You.”

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiff with service packets for service

upon Defendant.

2. Plaintiff shall return the completed service packets to the Clerk of Court on or

before June 27, 2007 for forwarding to the USMS. 

 3. Service shall be made on Defendant’s statutory agent for service of process

on or before July 13, 2007 at Government expense by the USMS or his authorized

representative pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to

accomplish service within this time period may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for

failure to serve pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m).

4. Defendant shall have twenty (20) days from the date of service within which

to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00999-LOA Document 9 Filed 06/08/07 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 -

Procedure.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Speak with the Judge

(docket #7) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00999-LOA Document 9 Filed 06/08/07 Page 3 of 3