Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020-4/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 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samuel Louis Fuller, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kari Jill Granville, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-00020-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller, who is currently confined in Maricopa County 

Fourth Avenue Jail, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Doc. 41.) 

 Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” (Doc. 154.) 

In his “motion” Plaintiff asserts that “the matters [in the motion] are not intended for the 

Court’s response, however the record is substantiative [sic] enough that Plaintiff believes 

such contentions may well better appropriate the manner of proceedings this case styles, 

by the Plaintiff’s ex parte communication to undersigned counsel on the record.” (Doc. 

154 at 1.) Attached to the “motion” is a letter written to defense counsel, which contains 

statements that could be construed as threats. Indeed, nothing in “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 

Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” is relevant to the issues in this case and the “motion” 

does not assist the Court in determining the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and does not add 

to the substantive claims. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion and strike it from 

the Record. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 157 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 Moreover, the Court is compelled to inform Plaintiff that “harassing, coercive, 

argumentative, threatening or similar statements to opposing counsel will not be 

permitted.” Sanders v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2014 WL 2859135, No. CIV 13-1440-TUCCKJ, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2014). If Plaintiff does not proceed with civility in this 

case, the Court will impose appropriate sanctions, including, if necessary, dismissal of his 

complaint. See id. (citing cases where Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed as a sanction for 

threats on defense counsel); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (a party must not present a motion to 

the Court “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or 

needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” 

(Doc. 154) is denied and the Clerk of the Court must strike “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion 

with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3” (Doc. 154) from the docket in this action. 

 Dated this 12th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 157 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2