Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01048/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01048-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anibal Ortiz,

Plaintiff

-vsTodd Thomas, et al.,

Defendants

CV-09-1048-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion to Correct and Motion for Sanctions, filed

June 22, 2010 (Doc. 33). Defendants have responded (Doc. 39). Plaintiff has not replied.

Plaintiff complains that the caption being used reflects now dismissed Defendant

Thomas, rather than now dismissed Defendant Swenson. Plaintiff complains that it confuses

the case with his other pending matter, Ortiz v. Thomas, CV-09-0396-PHX-MHM-JRI. 

Defendants respond, not opposing the motion, but noting Defendant Swanson’s dismissal and

their preference to utilize the remaining defendants. “[T]he caption of an action is only the

handle to identify it and ordinarily the determination of whether or not a defendant is

properly in the case hinges upon the allegations in the body of the complaint and not upon

his inclusion in the caption.” Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 303 -304 (9th Cir. 1959),

overruled in part on other grounds, Cohen v. Norris, 300 F.2d 24 (9th Cir.1962).

Accordingly, “federal courts generally will allow an amendment under Rule 15 to correct

technical defects in the caption when that is thought necessary.” Wright & Miller, 5A Fed.

Pract. Proc. Civ. 3d § 1321 . Plaintiff has another case pending in this Court by the name of

Anibal ortiz v. Todd Thomas, et al., CV-09-0396-PHX-MHM-JRI. To avoid confusion, the

Court will direct the Clerk to modify the caption of this matter to “Anibal Ortiz v. Donna

Burnias, et al.” 

Plaintiff also complains that the Joint Discovery Plan filed by Defendants on June 1,

Case 2:09-cv-01048-JWS Document 41 Filed 07/21/10 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 -

2010 (Doc. 29) does not include defense counsel’s actual signature and was not signed by

Plaintiff. Defendants properly respond (Doc. 39) that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the

safe harbor notice provisions and other components of Rule 11, necessary to an award of

sanctions.

Moreover, the plan submitted included Plaintiff’s written proposed changes to

defendants’ draft, and represents that those changes are incorporated in the draft. Plaintiff

does not suggest that the plan does not reflect the draft he reviewed or that it failed to

faithfully incorporate his written change requests. He does argue that it failed to incorporate

changes the parties had verbally discussed

As to Plaintiff’s complaint that the draft is unsigned by defense counsel, the Court

directs Plaintiff’s attention to section II(C)((1) of the Court’s Administrative Policies and

Procedures Manual for Electronic Case Filing, which directs registered users of the Court’s

electronic case filing system to “sign” documents by appending their name “preceded by a

“s/”. Local Civil Rule 5.5(g) provides that the “log-in and password required to submit

documents to the ECF System constitute the Registered User’s signature on all electronic

documents filed with the Court for purposes of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.” Thus, the Joint Discovery Plan was properly signed by defense counsel. 

However, the Court notes that Defendants have utilized a similar device for Plaintiff,

who is not a registered user. Defendants’ attention is directed to section II(C)((2) of the

manual, concerning the signatures of non-registered persons (scanned signature required),

and section II(c)(3) concerning documents with multiple signatures (“electronic signatures

of non-registered signatories are not permitted”).

Accordingly, the Court will direct Defendants to resubmit the parties’ Joint Discovery

Plan with correct signatures.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Correct and Motion for

Sanctions, filed June 22, 2010 (Doc. 33) is GRANTED to the extent of the relief provided

herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the caption

Case 2:09-cv-01048-JWS Document 41 Filed 07/21/10 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 -

of this case to “Anibal Ortiz v. Donna Burnias, et al.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen days of the filing of this Order,

Defendants shall submit a properly signed copy of the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan. 

DATED: July 20, 2010 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\09-1048-033wo Order 10 06 23 re MCorrectCaption MSanctions.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-01048-JWS Document 41 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 3