Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

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, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert F. Smith, Sr., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-2358 PHX DGC

ORDER

Pro se Defendant Robert F. Smith, Sr. moves for reconsideration of this Court’s

March 22, 2011, order (“the Order”) denying his motion to dismiss (Doc. 19). Doc. 20.

Defendant argues the Order incorrectly noted that he did not file a reply bringing forth

evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity attending Plaintiff’s filing of this case, and

requests the Order be reconsidered in light of the reply appearing on the docket with a filing

date of March 21, 2011. Id.

Pro se plaintiffs are expected to abide by the rules of the court in which they litigate.

Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s

response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed and served by mail on February 28,

2011. Doc. 15 at 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Defendant had seven days within which to

reply, LRCiv. 7.2(d), and this period was automatically extended to ten days due to service

by mail, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Defendant asserts that his reply was mailed on March 18, 2011

(Doc. 20 at 1:35-36), several days beyond the reply deadline mentioned above. Defendant

has not shown good cause for the delay either in the reply or in the motion for

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 24 Filed 04/11/11 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

 Even if the reply had been timely, its arguments are not persuasive and it proffers

no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in Plaintiff’s filing of this case.

- 2 -

reconsideration. Docs. 18, 20. The reply was, therefore, untimely and the Court properly

declined to consider it.1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) is denied.

DATED this 8th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 24 Filed 04/11/11 Page 2 of 2