Gordon v. Bradshaw

Opinion

WO Reynard Gordon, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. CIV 18-030-TUC-CKJ (JR) vs. ) ) Kenneth Bradshaw, et al., ) ORDER ) Respondents. ) ) On July 30, 2021, a July 25, 2021, document submitted by Reynard Gordon (“Gordon”) was docketed. This document appears to be correspondence directed to the Clerk of Court and states it is regarding “Letter Rogatory – ‘Abandoned Paperwork’ – Notice of Electronic Filing and ‘Order” Account No: CIV 18-030-TUC-CKJ (JR)[.]” July 25, 2021 Document (Doc. 45, p. 1). Gordon is advised it is improper for a party to communicate directly with court personnel. Indeed, mailing a letter to the Clerk of Court, the judge, or any court personnel may be considered improper. Higuera v. City of Glendale, No. CV1905554PHXMTLJZB, 2020 WL 1873476, at *6 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2020). “Any request for action by the Court must be in the form of a motion that complies with the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the Local Rules).” Id. Additionally, “ a letter rogatory is ‘a formal written request sent by a court to a foreign court’ for the purpose of obtaining evidence, including depositions and documents, in a pending action.” Scalia v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 337 F.R.D. 281, 287 (N.D. Cal. 2020). There is no information in the document indicating this document is a letter rogatory issued by a court. Moreover, the document appears to request the Clerk of Court: close all accounts immediatelly [sic] and forward all accounts, interest, all proceeds, “bonds”, bills of exchange, credit, all financial documents (CAFR, CUSIP, AUTOTRIS, etc[.]) and attachments, interest financial return with standard commercial compound interest at the rate — 16%: past and present, that means everything associated with said account. July 25, 2021 Document (Doc. 45, pp. 4-5). The July 25, 2021, Document appears to request a check be sent to "Gordon, Reynard Estate, Executor Office, Nation Arizonal[,]" as a "priority creditor[,]" in care of a corrections officer in Douglas, Arizona. (/d. pp. 1, 5). The assertions contained within the July 25, 2021, Document appear to be variants of “sovereign citizen” arguments which courts have “uniformly rejected” based on “the sovereign citizen ideology as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible.” Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:15-CV-1934-LJO-BAM, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016), citation omitted; see alsoMassey v. United States, No. CR B:14-876-1, 2017 WL 7790110, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CR B-14-876-1, 2018 WL 1027439 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018) (collecting cases by six Courts of Appeals). Indeed, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has rejected arguments premised on the ideology as ‘utterly meritless.”” Mackey, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED to the extent Gordon requests any relief in the July 25, 2021 Document (Doc. 45) it is DENIED. DATED this 3rd day of August, 2021. A. ig L On gorsnore? Cindy K. Jorgénso 54 United States District Judge _2-