Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670-8/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

Allan Kenneth Morgal, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-0670-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Maricopa County Board of )

Supervisors, )

)

)

Defendant. ) )

On April 13, 2012, plaintiff pro se, Allan K. Morgal,

filed a “Notice to the Court” (Doc. 148), advising that the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals awarded him costs in the amount

of $19.80. Among other things, plaintiff requested that the

defendant, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, send a

remittance in that amount to a third-party. Construing that

Notice as a motion, by order entered June 6, 2012, this court

ordered the defendant to file a response, if any, within

fifteen days of the date of entry of that order. Ord. (Doc.

153) at 1:27-2:2. 

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 163 Filed 07/18/12 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

- 2 -

Defendant timely filed its “Notice of Mailing Check for

Costs to Plaintiff[,]” showing that on June 13, 2012, it had

forwarded a check in the amount of $19.80 to plaintiff at his

address currently on file with the court. See Not. (Doc.

157), exh. A thereto (Doc. 157-1). The defendant

acknowledged plaintiff’s request that the funds be sent to a

third-party, which it indicates is “outside the Arizona

Department of Corrections[] [(“ADOC”)]. Id. at 1:22. 

Nonetheless, the defendant forward the funds directly to

plaintiff because “it is unclear as to whether” delivery of

the funds to third-party outside ADOC “would comply with ADOC

Policy 900, which governs incarcerated individual’s funds.” 

Id. at 1:22-24. 

Given defendant’s remittance of $19.80 to plaintiff as

the costs of appeal, the court hereby DENIES as moot

plaintiff’s “Notice to the Court” (Doc. 148), which this

court previously construed as a motion.

On July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Request for

Discovery” (Doc. 161). Construing this “Request” as a

“Motion for Discovery,” the defendant shall have fourteen

(14) days from the date of entry of this order in which to

file and serve a response, if any, to that motion. Plaintiff

shall have seven (7) days after service of such response, if

any, to file a reply if he so desires.

In light of the rulings herein, and this court’s

familiarity with this case as evidenced in Morgal v Maricopa

County Bd. Of Sup’rs, 2012 WL 2029719 (D.Ariz. June 6,

2012)(Doc. 152),

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 163 Filed 07/18/12 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

s:\clr\prisoner\morgal148 - 3 -

IT IS ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate

Judge in this case. All matters going forward shall remain

with the District Judge for disposition as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Notice to the

Court (Doc. 148) is denied as moot.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 163 Filed 07/18/12 Page 3 of 3