Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02820/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02820-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

THOMAS PIERCE, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV-95-2820-PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

TERRY STEWART, et. al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On December 15, 1995, Plaintiff filed an action in this Court

claiming that Defendants violated his civil rights accorded to him

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. # 1). That action was resolved by

jury verdict in favor of Defendants on April 22, 2002 (doc. # 284). 

Thereafter, the case was terminated with a judgment entered for

Defendants from which Plaintiff did not appeal (doc. ## 290- 291). 

Three years later, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause

(doc. # 295), a Motion to Compel captioned as an "Open Letter to

the Court" (doc. # 296), and a Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order (doc. # 297). Those motions were denied by this Court's

order (doc. # 299) entered September 30, 2005, which explained that

Case 2:95-cv-02820-RCB Document 304 Filed 05/22/06 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 -

Plaintiff's new factual allegations should be presented in a

separate lawsuit.

Plaintiff has now filed another Motion to Compel, asking the

Court to direct Arizona Department of Corrections to provide the

Court with "all the informal attempts, grievances[,] grievance

appeals[,] responses[,] and all documentation for all of the above

processed and unprocessed resolved and not resolved [sic] . . . ." 

Mot. (doc. # 301). As before, the Court treats this motion,

submitted after entry of judgment, as a motion to alter or amend

judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks &

Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th

Cir. 2001). For the same reasons set forth in greater detail in

the Court's September 30 order (doc. # 299), Plaintiff's motion

will be denied. As previously explained, Plaintiffs new factual

allegations must be pursued in a separate lawsuit. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. # 301)

is DENIED.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record and pro se plaintiff

Case 2:95-cv-02820-RCB Document 304 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2