Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01302/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01302-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hisrael Sanchez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01302-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER

On June 15, 2015, Defendants Cortez and Vargas1 filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 28) and Statement of Facts (Doc. 29). The Court issued its Amended 

Order (Doc. 33) pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 

banc). The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment together with a separate statement of facts in accordance with Rule 

56, Fed. R. Civ. P., and LRCiv 56.1(b), no later than July 29, 2015. The Court advised 

the Plaintiff that failure to file a response which conforms in all substantial respects with 

the requirements of Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., LRCiv 56.1(b), (e), and LRCiv 7.2 may 

result in dismissal of the case.

On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a document which is a letter to Kelley J. 

Morrissey (Doc. 34) with a number of attachments (Doc. 34 at 4-20). In his letter 

Plaintiff relates that he fell while handcuffed due to standing water, followed policy 

1 By Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) filed on June 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice of Defendant Cardenas pursuant to Rule 

4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P.

 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 38 Filed 09/22/15 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

regarding a grievance, is taking medication for injuries he sustained, will need future 

medical care upon his release from prison, and believes he has a strong case. Plaintiff’s 

letter does not comply in all substantial respects with Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., or LRCiv 

56.1(b), (e). Defendants subsequently filed their Motion for Clarification Re: Dkt. 34, or 

in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Dkt. 34 (Doc. 36).

Though untitled, based upon the content and timing of Plaintiff’s letter, the Court 

finds that the document (Doc. 34) was most likely intended to be a response to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court docketed Doc. 34 as a 

“Notice to Kelley Morrissey.” The Court, however, deems Doc. 34 to be a response to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

“A district court has discretion to adopt local rules.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 

U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citing Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987)). See also Rule 

83, Fed. R. Civ. P.; 28 U.S.C. § 2071. A district court’s local rules are not petty 

requirements, but have “the force of law.” Hollingsworth, 558 U.S. at 191 (quoting Weil 

v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929). In addition, local rules are binding on the court and 

the parties. Professional Progame Group v. Dept. of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th

Cir. 1994) (citing Martel v. Los Angeles, 21 F.3d 940, 946-47 (9th Cir. 1994)). A district 

court cannot depart from its local rules which affect “substantial rights.” Id.

In this case, were the Court to depart from the local rules and allow Plaintiff’s 

response to stand, such departure would not affect substantial rights of the opposing party 

and require reversal. See Martel, 21 F.3d at 946. Because Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 34) 

fails to comply with Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., and LRCiv 56.1(a), (b), (e), the Defendants 

ask the Court to strike Plaintiff’s document (Doc. 34). LRCiv 7.2(m). However, “a 

motion to strike may be filed only if it is authorized by statute or rule . . . or if it seeks to 

strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not 

authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.” Id. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is not 

authorized by Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P. In fact, the Court should liberally construe a civil 

motion from a pro se inmate and avoid applying summary judgment rules strictly. See

- 2 -

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 38 Filed 09/22/15 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 

Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010); Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 

348, 352 (9th Cir. 1999).

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED granting in part Defendants’ Motion for Clarification Re: Dkt. 

34, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Dkt. 34 (Doc. 36). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Notice to Kelley Morrissey” (Doc. 34) is 

deemed a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the alternative Motion to Strike. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file their reply to Plaintiff’s 

response (Doc. 34) no later than 15 days from the filing of this order. 

Dated this 22nd day of September, 2015. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 38 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 3