Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01364/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01364-3/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Melvin De Freitas, Jr.

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Todd Thomas, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01364-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER 

The Court issues its rulings on the three Motions (Docs. 140, 141, 146) discussed 

herein. 

I. Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for Permission to Amend Freitas Second 

Set of Supplemental Disclosure Statement . . .” (Doc. 140), Docketed as 

“Motion to Amend/Correct Notice” 

In October 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure

Statement Plus 304 to 374 Production of Documents” (Doc. 110) (the “Second 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement”). In its January 26, 2016 Order (Doc. 137 at 2), the 

Court reiterated its instruction from a prior Order that “disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or 

(2) . . . must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing 

. . . .” The Court directed the Clerk of Court to strike the Second Supplemental 

Disclosure Statement. (Doc. 137 at 6). The Court also directed the Clerk of Court to seal 

the Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement because it contained the full names of 

WO

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 7
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

correctional employees and presented potential risks to the privacy and security interests 

of the employees. (Id.). The Court directed Plaintiff to file a Notice of Service in 

compliance with Rule 5.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”), which 

indicates that on October 21, 2015, Plaintiff served the Second Supplemental Disclosure 

Statement on Defendants.1

 (Id.).

In February 2016, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as “Notice of Service for 

Permission to Amend Freitas Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure Statement Present 

to Court Order [Doc. #137-1] and LRCiv 5.2 PLUS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE” 

(Doc. 140). The Clerk of Court docketed Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 140) as a “Motion to 

Amend/Correct Notice.” Instead of filing a Notice of Service in compliance with LRCiv 

5.2, Plaintiff filed an Amended Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement.2

 Plaintiff 

stated that he redacted the first names of correctional employees. However, as 

Defendants point out (Doc. 143) and Plaintiff concedes (Doc. 152), Plaintiff did not 

redact all of the names. 

Although pro se litigants are given leniency in evaluating compliance with the 

technical Rules of Civil Procedure, the rules still apply to pro se litigants. Draper v. 

Combs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). (“We recognize that the plaintiff represented 

himself and therefore, in evaluating his compliance with the technical rules of civil

procedure, we treat him with great leniency.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are 

bound by the rules of procedure.”). Plaintiff’s filing of the actual Amended Second

Supplemental Disclosure Statement instead of a Notice of Service violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Rule 5(d) and LRCiv 5.2. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to strike the Amended 

1 The Court deemed the October 21, 2015 filing date of Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement as the date of service on Defendants. (Doc. 137 at 

2).

2 To the extent Plaintiff requests leave of Court to serve the Amended Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement, the request will be denied as such leave is 

unnecessary.

- 2 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 7
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

Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 140). Because the Amended Second 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement contains the full names of correctional employees, 

the Court will also order the Clerk of Court to seal the Amended Second Supplemental 

Disclosure Statement (Doc. 140).3

 The Court deems service of the Amended Second 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 140) on Defendants complete as of February 

18, 2016, the date it was docketed by the Clerk of Court. By June 16, 2016, Plaintiff

shall comply with LRCiv 5.2 by filing a Notice of Service indicating that on February 

18, 2016, he served his Amended Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement on 

Defendants. The Notice of Service shall not attach the Disclosure Statement. 

II. Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for Permission to File this Motion to Strike 

. . .” (Doc. 141), Docketed as “Motion to Strike”

 i. Plaintiff’s Request to Strike Inmate Kalima Smith’s Statements

On October 2, 2015, Defendants filed a “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 

11” (Doc. 104). Plaintiff responded on October 27, 2015 (Doc. 112). On November 6, 

2015, Defendants filed their “Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 

11” (Doc. 116). Attached to Defendants’ Reply are an affidavit and incident statement

signed by inmate Kalima Smith (“Smith”). (Docs. 116-1 and 116-2). On November 16, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Service for Permission to Amend Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc. # 116] Affidavit of Kalima Smith” (Doc. 124). 

In his Notice, Plaintiff stated that he “respectfully amend [sic] his response and oppose 

against Defendant’s newly-discovered evidence of the Affidavit claims of inmate Kalima 

Smith.” (Id.). Plaintiff’s Notice contained his response to Smith’s statements. 

Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 124) on the ground that it is 

an improper sur-reply. (Doc. 127). In a January 2016 Order (Doc. 137), the Court 

3 As stated in the Court’s Order (Doc. 137) directing the Clerk of Court to seal the 

Second Supplemental Disclosure (Doc. 110), the Court finds that the potential safety risks 

to correctional employees upon public disclosure of their full names outweighs the need 

for the public’s access to the information. The Court therefore continues to find good 

cause for sealing the information. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

(9th Cir. 2010) (good cause finding required to seal a non-dispositive document).

- 3 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 7
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

concluded that because Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 116) contained new evidence (i.e. 

Smith’s affidavit and incident statement), it is appropriate to allow Plaintiff the 

opportunity to respond to the new evidence. The Court construed Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 

124) as a request for leave of Court to amend his Response as set forth in the Notice. 

(Doc. 137 at 4-5). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request. (Id. at 5).

In February 2016, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as “Notice of Service for 

Permission to File this Motion to Strike . . .” (Doc. 141). The Clerk of Court docketed 

the document as a “Motion to Strike.” The Motion (Doc. 141) requests that the Court 

“strike and not consider” Smith’s affidavit and incident statement on the ground that it is 

improper to include new evidence in a reply. The Court, however, has allowed Plaintiff

the opportunity to respond to Smith’s statements. (Docs. 124, 137). Plaintiff’s request to 

strike Smith’s affidavit and incident statement (Docs. 116-1, 116-2) will be denied. 

 ii. Plaintiff’s Request to Strike Inmate James Clancy’s Declaration

On December 22, 2015, Defendants filed their “Reply in Support of Amended 

Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 135). The Reply explains that on December 21, 

2015, Defendants learned information from inmate James Clancy (“Clancy”) that 

supports their defense. (Id. at 8). Attached to Defendants’ Reply is a declaration signed 

by Clancy, which is dated December 22, 2015. (Doc. 135-1). 

In his Motion (Doc. 141), Plaintiff challenges the credibility of the statements

made in Clancy’s declaration. In an apparent attempt to show that Clancy had a 

motivation to lie and corroborate Smith’s statements, Plaintiff alleges that Clancy and 

Smith were lovers. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff also states that before Clancy made his December 

2015 declaration, Clancy was assigned to the Hotel Bravo unit. Plaintiff alleges that 

Clancy desired to be reassigned to the November Echo unit, and was reassigned to the 

November Echo unit after he signed the declaration. (Id.). 

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 141) requests that the Court “strike and not consider” 

Clancy’s declaration. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that a court cannot consider new 

evidence provided in a reply when the other party does not have an opportunity to 

- 4 -

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 7
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

respond to the evidence. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The Court deems the statements made in Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 141) regarding 

Clancy’s December 2015 declaration as Plaintiff’s response to the declaration. Plaintiff’s 

Motion (Doc. 141) will be denied. 

III. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Notify the Court that Plaintiff is Going on a 

Hunger Strike as of March 9, 2016” (Doc. 146)

In March 2016, Plaintiff filed a document (Doc. 146) notifying the Court of his 

plans to initiate a hunger strike on March 9, 2016. Although Plaintiff’s document is 

captioned as a “Motion to Notify . . .” (Doc. 146), no relief is requested. The document is 

therefore construed as a notice. The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to amend the 

docket accordingly.

The Court ordered Defendants to respond to the Notice (Doc. 146). (Doc. 147). 

Attached to Defendants’ Response (Doc. 148) is Plaintiff’s Confinement Activity Record 

(“CAR”) for March 6-16, 2016. The CAR indicates that Plaintiff refused breakfast, 

lunch, and dinner on March 9, 2016, but resumed eating on March 10, 2016. (Id. at 4). 

Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 157) does not dispute that he resumed eating on March 10, 2016. 

The Court will take no action on Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 146). 

Defendants request that the Court sanction Plaintiff pursuant to the Court’s 

inherent authority or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for Plaintiff’s filing of the Notice (Doc. 146). “A 

specific finding of bad faith . . . must ‘precede any sanction under the court’s inherent 

powers.’” United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting 

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)). The imposition of sanctions 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 requires a “finding of recklessness or bad faith.”4 B.K.B. v. Maui 

Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing United 

4 28 U.S.C. § 1927 states that “[a]ny attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred 

because of such conduct.” In the Ninth Circuit, pro se litigants may be sanctioned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(“Section 1927 sanctions may be imposed upon a pro se plaintiff, despite Wages’s 

protestations to the contrary.”). 

- 5 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 7
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

States v. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1983)). Ignorance or negligence does not 

support a finding of recklessness or bad faith. See Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 711 

(9th Cir. 1998) (affirming denial of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and court’s 

inherent authority where the record “certainly shows ignorance or negligence on the part 

of [plaintiff], but does not compel a finding that he was reckless or acted in bad faith”); 

Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1485 (9th Cir. 1989) (district court may not 

sanction mere “inadvertent” conduct); Cruz v. Savage, 896 F.2d 626, 630 (1st Cir. 1990) 

(“[C]onduct sanctioned [under § 1927] should be more severe than mere negligence, 

inadvertence, or incompetence.”).

Plaintiff mailed the Notice (Doc. 146) to the Court on March 9, 2016—the 

intended date of his hunger strike. Plaintiff refused all three meals on March 9, 2016, but 

resumed eating on March 10, 2016. Based on the record, the Court cannot find that 

Plaintiff filed the Notice recklessly or in bad faith. At most, Plaintiff’s filing of the 

Notice shows ignorance or negligence. The Court will deny Defendants’ request for 

sanctions.

Although the Court cannot make the necessary finding that Plaintiff filed the 

Notice (Doc. 146) recklessly or in bad faith, the Court observes a developing pattern of 

superfluous documents being filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is cautioned that the continued 

filing of such documents could lead to the inference of bad faith that may support future 

sanctions. Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 661 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (it is 

“permissible to infer bad faith from [a party’s] action[s] plus the surrounding 

circumstances”).

For the above reasons,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for Permission to 

Amend Freitas Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure Statement Present to Court Order 

[Doc. #137-1] and LRCiv 5.2 PLUS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE” (Doc. 140). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to seal and strike 

Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for Permission to Amend Freitas Second Set of 

- 6 -

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 7
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 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement Present to Court Order [Doc. #137-1] and LRCiv 5.2 

PLUS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE” (Doc. 140). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by June 16, 2016, Plaintiff shall comply with 

LRCiv 5.2 by filing a Notice of Service indicating that on February 18, 2016, he served 

his Amended Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement on Defendants. The Notice of 

Service shall not attach the Disclosure Statement. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for 

Permission to File this Motion to Strike . . .” (Doc. 141), docketed as a “Motion to 

Strike.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to amend the docket 

to reflect that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Notify the Court that Plaintiff is Going on a Hunger 

Strike Hunger Strike as of March 9, 2016” (Doc. 146) is a notice. The Court takes no 

action on Plaintiff’s Notice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to remove Plaintiff’s 

Notice (Doc. 146) from the Court’s pending motions calendar. 

Dated this 26th day of May, 2016. 

- 7 - 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 7