Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00680/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00680-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Lee Es Burgeles,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0680-PHX-LOA

ORDER

The matter arises on pro se Plaintiff’s “Request for Motion” filed on a

District Court summons form. Several portions of the form have been crossed out and 33

pages of exhibits are attached thereto. It is not clear what Plaintiff is requesting or the

relief he is seeking.

 Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case (CV-08-0680-PHX-LOA) was dismissed

without prejudice on May 22, 2008 due to the inadequacies of Plaintiff’s Complaint and

the absence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. (docket # 9) This case was terminated

and Judgment was entered. (docket # 10) In his Complaint, docket # 1, designated

“Notice of Appeal,” Plaintiff sued Governor Janet Napolitano, the only named Defendant

in the caption of the Complaint. In Plaintiff’s “Request for Motion,” docket # 13, Plaintiff

appears to be alleging new claims against GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C. and lawyer Bert L.

Roos for the “crimes” of “breach of contract under the rule of Consumer Fraud Act . . . .” 

(docket # 13) It appears that Plaintiff is now attempting to file a new lawsuit against

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 14 Filed 11/24/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

different parties alleging different claims without paying a new filing fee and obtaining a

new civil case number from the Clerk.

This Court is cognizant of the special latitude given to pro se litigants. 

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). This is not, however, an issue of

holding “pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings prepared by

lawyers[.]” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) Plaintiff's pro se

status does not permit him to disregard the judicial process as he chooses. The Ninth

Circuit has made clear that a pro se litigant must “abide by the rules of the court in which

he litigates.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Carter, 784

F.2d at 1008). If Plaintiff desires to file a new lawsuit against different parties, he must

pay the required filing fee or follow court procedure to obtain in forma pauperis status;

file a new Complaint that meets the pleading requirements of Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., and,

of course, demonstrates therein that this District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; and

obtain a new civil case number from the Clerk.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Request for Motion,” docket # 13, is

DENIED. This case shall remain terminated.

Dated this 24th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 14 Filed 11/24/08 Page 2 of 2