Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01016/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01016-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

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

United States of America, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

David H. Griggs, 

Respondent.

__________________________________

David H. Griggs,

Petitioner,

vs.

United States of America; Internal

Revenue Service; and Jennifer Pardue,

Revenue Officer, IRS,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1016–PHX-DGC

(Lead Case)

No. MC-08-0103-PHX-DGC

(Consolidated Case)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondent Griggs’s motion for leave to file a reply in

support of his objection to Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) of October 7, 2009. Dkt. #79. The Court has already filed an order regarding the

R&R and Griggs’s objection. Dkt. #81. 

Griggs filed the pending motion and lodged a proposed reply on November 24, 2009.

Dkt. #79. Griggs admits that he filed his proposed reply after the deadline had passed, but

Case 2:08-cv-01016-DGC Document 82 Filed 12/01/09 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

1

 Griggs is correct that the complaints of pro se litigants are “held to a less stringent

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Cruz v. Cardwell, 486 F.2d 550, 552

(8th Cir. 1973); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). This case law does not apply to

Griggs’s reply memorandum, where no pleadings are at issue.

2

 Even if it had considered Griggs’s untimely reply, the Court still would have

accepted the R&R and ordered Griggs to comply with the Order Enforcing Summons.

- 2 -

asserts that his delay should be excused because he is a pro se litigant. Id. at 1. Griggs does

not say why he did not file a motion for extension of time before the deadline passed.

Griggs is a pro se litigant, but he still must follow the rules of procedure. See King

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of

procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.

1986) (“pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than

parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006,

1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the

court in which he litigates.”).1

 Griggs is pro se by choice. The Court provided Griggs with

the opportunity to receive appointed counsel if he complied with certain conditions, and he

chose not to comply. Dkt. #40. 

Given that Griggs has shown no good cause for his delay in filing, the Court will deny

his motion for leave to file a reply.2

 The Court’s order of November 25, 2009 adopting the

R&R and requiring Griggs to comply with the Order Enforcing Summons (Dkt. #10) by

January 15, 2010 remains in force. 

IT IS ORDERED that Griggs’s motion for leave to file a reply (Dkt. #24) is denied.

Dated this 30th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01016-DGC Document 82 Filed 12/01/09 Page 2 of 2