Filed: Jul. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, District Judge. 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 r
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, District Judge. 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 re..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, District Judge.
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.
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),
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.
