Filed: Jun. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2018
Summary: Order [ECF Nos. 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Counseled petitioner Timothy Wayne Connors has filed a pro se motion or request for a court order. 1 His counsel then filed a motion to allow Connors's pro se motion to be refiled in a new case as a civil-rights complaint under 1983. 2 Respondents move to strike the pro se filing, 3 and I grant the motion for several independent reasons. First, Connors's pro se filing is a fugitive document not properly
Summary: Order [ECF Nos. 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Counseled petitioner Timothy Wayne Connors has filed a pro se motion or request for a court order. 1 His counsel then filed a motion to allow Connors's pro se motion to be refiled in a new case as a civil-rights complaint under 1983. 2 Respondents move to strike the pro se filing, 3 and I grant the motion for several independent reasons. First, Connors's pro se filing is a fugitive document not properly b..
More
Order [ECF Nos. 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
Counseled petitioner Timothy Wayne Connors has filed a pro se motion or request for a court order.1 His counsel then filed a motion to allow Connors's pro se motion to be refiled in a new case as a civil-rights complaint under § 1983.2 Respondents move to strike the pro se filing,3 and I grant the motion for several independent reasons.
First, Connors's pro se filing is a fugitive document not properly before the court. Second, as his counsel alludes in her subsequent motion, Connors's pro se motion is best construed as a pro se civil-rights complaint that alleges a violation of his constitutional right of access to the courts. If Connors wants to pursue this claim pro se, he must file a civil-rights complaint on this court's required form, and he must either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Third, Connors alleges that personnel at a prison in Arizona (to which he was transferred for a period of time before being transferred back to Nevada) failed to give him his legal documents. So it appears that Connors should file his complaint in the District of Arizona—not here. I also note that there is no indication of what the missing materials are or how their absence has impeded Connors's ability to litigate the petition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents' motion to strike [ECF No. 91] is GRANTED. Connors's pro se motion for court order [ECF No. 90] is STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Connors's counseled motion to allow his pro se motion to be reopened as a civil-rights complaint [ECF No. 94] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' second motion for an extension of time to file a response to the amended petition [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Connors's first and second motions for an extension of time to file an opposition to the dismissal motion [ECF Nos. 87, 88] are both GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondents' motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 93] is GRANTED. Respondents have until July 16, 2018, to FILE and SERVE their reply.
