Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01729-0/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

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Felipe J. Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James W. Baird, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-1729-PHX-RCB (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Motion for Leave to

Amend (Doc. #125), and Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition and for Clarification (Doc. #127).

The Court will deny the motion to strike and grant the request for clarification.

I. Motion to Strike and for Leave to Amend 

In his first motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike his summary judgment

motion, his response to Defendants' summary judgment motion, his response to Defendants'

objections, and his reply on his summary judgment motion. Plaintiff contends that his

submissions are improperly formatted and voluminous, and he seeks to amend his response

to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment so that it is easier for the Court to consider

his arguments. Notably, Plaintiff asserts that he does not wish to present any new statements

of fact or change the substance of the documents previously filed. Defendants filed a

response in which they argue that Plaintiff should only be permitted to file a new response

to their motion; not a new summary judgment motion (Doc. #124). 

Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB Document 131 Filed 07/10/06 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 -

Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules shall be

"administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action."

Striking Plaintiff's previous filings and allowing an amended response and a subsequent

reply, would unnecessarily dely this action. Because Plaintiff states that he seeks only to

clear up his arguments, not to materially change them, there is no reason to further delay

adjudication. The summary judgment motions are now ready for consideration and the Court

will proceed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

II. Motion in Opposition and Request for Clarification From the Court

In his second motion Plaintiff opposes the Court's decision to take Plaintiff's summary

judgment motion into consideration. He reasserts his desire for the Court to strike previous

filings, and he inquires as to whether the Court will, in fact, consider all of his submissions

before issuing a decision on summary judgment. He further asks whether the Court Order

dated May 10, 2006 (Doc. #122) allows for him to now file a supplemental reply to

Defendants' summary judgement motion. Finally, Plaintiff's own records do not include a

Doc. #125, thus, he is confused about the reference to such a docket number.

As indicated supra, Doc. #125 is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Motion for Leave

to Amend. The Court's Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend for Summary Judgment

provided that the Court would accept that motion, i.e. Doc. #121, as a supplemental reply;

it did not provide for any further supplemental filings from Plaintiff. As the Court is denying

Plaintiff's motion to strike, it will consider all submissions previously filed by Plaintiff. To

the extent that this Order answers Plaintiff's questions about the docket and the Court's earlier

order, his motion is granted.

//

//

//

//

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and for Leave to Amend (Doc.

#125) is denied, and Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition and for Clarification (Doc. #127) is

Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB Document 131 Filed 07/10/06 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 -

granted to the extent that it clarified the docket and the status of the summary judgment

proceedings.

DATED this 6th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB Document 131 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 3