Hill 068563 v. Arizona Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 20, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-05693·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 8 9 Isiah Romont Hill, No. CV 19-05693-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Corrections, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Isiah Romont Hill, who is in the custody of the 16 Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), filed a “State Court Complaint” in Maricopa 17 County Superior Court case #CV 2019-004926 against several Defendants, including 18 ADC. (Doc. 1-3 at 3-6.)1 In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted violations of his First through 19 Fourteenth Amendment rights allegedly stemming from the use of excessive force and 20 restrictions on seeing one of his children. The State of Arizona was served on October 30, 21 2019.2 On November 27, 2019, the State and ADC removed the case to this Court based 22 upon federal question subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) 23 On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the notice of removal 24 (Doc. 4), which the Court construed as a motion to remand this case to state court. On 25

26 1 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s 27 Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 28 2 Although the State of Arizona was not a named Defendant, it was served with the Complaint and noted that to the extent Plaintiff sought relief against ADC, the State was the real party in interest. 1 December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed two notices (Docs. 5 and 6.) On December 12, 2019, 2 Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 7). On December 18, 2019, 3 Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed (Doc. 8) and a motion to suppress (Doc. 9). On January 4 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) review 5 (Doc. 10) and another notice (Doc. 11). On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to 6 stay (Doc. 12), and on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for ruling on his motion 7 to suppress (Doc. 13). 8 In a January 28, 2020 Order, the Court overruled Plaintiff’s objection to PLRA 9 review of his Complaint,3 denied his notices to the extent that any relief was sought and 10 denied his motions (Doc. 14). The Court also dismissed the Complaint with leave to file a 11 first amended complaint because it was not filed on the court-approved form. (Id.) The 12 Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to file a first amended complaint using this Court’s 13 approved form complaint for use by prisoners. (Id.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff 14 that failure to use the court-approved form complaint could result in an amended complaint 15 being ordered stricken. (Id. at 3-4.) 16 Plaintiff filed a motion for status seeking the status of his motion to suppress (Doc. 17 15). The Court granted the motion for status to the extent that it informed him of the status 18 of this action and his motion to suppress. Plaintiff then filed a “Motion to Strike/or 19 Impeach Submitted Notice of Judged Fact Rule 201” (Doc. 18). In this motion, Plaintiff 20 asked the Court to strike the removal of this action from the record, which the Court denied 21 (Doc. 21). 22 On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) but did 23 not use the court-approved form. Plaintiff also filed a “Motion of Notice of Adjudicated 24 Fact Presented Rule of Evidence 201” (Doc. 24); a motion for entry of default judgment 25 (Doc. 26); a motion to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9) (Doc. 27); and a motion to stay (Doc. 26 28). The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with court 27 orders by using the court-approved form and will deny the motions. The Court will grant

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill 068563 v. Arizona Department of Corrections, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Hill 068563 v. Arizona Department of Corrections (Hill 068563 v. Arizona Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related