Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

` FILED
· _____ LODGE:)
___ RECEIVED _—_ COPY
N0 V 0 I gggg
CLERK U S D
_ _ B DMCTSJEEEQSSURT
I Scott M. McNair "L._ E DEAEU
5401 North Black Canyon Highway W
2 Phoenix, Arizona 85015
602.433.7992
3
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 SCOTT M. MCNAIR No. CV-03-2119-PHX-N\lW
Plaintiff]
9 REPLY TO
V. MOTION TO COMPEL WITHDRAWAL OF
10 COUNSEL EILEEN DENNIS GILBRIDE
County of Maricopa, et al,
1 I Defendants, Assigned to the Hon. Neil V. Wake
12
13
14
15 I. PLEA FOR LENIENCY AND WAIVER OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
16 In that the Plaintiff Q\/lcNair) is neither represented by counsel nor had any formal legal training,
17 he does hereby request leniency from the Court for the form and content of this pleading. Plaintiff
18 also requests the Court to waive and/or modify any formal procedural requirements in order to insure
19 him due process and equitable justice, and to insure that a fair and just determination can be made.
20 (‘ZPr0 se litigants ’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as
21 lavigvers. "1)
22
[ Haines K Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594;Jenkins K McKeithen, 395 US 411, 421 (1969); Picking VY Penna. Rwy. Co. 151
F.2d 240; Puckett H Cox, 456 F.2d 233.)
1
Case 2:O3—cv—O2119-NVW Document 81 Filed 11/O1/2005 Page 1 of 4

1 II. MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY
2 ln his motion to compel counsel (GilBride) to withdraw, plaintiff cites relevant authority that
3 establishes an attorney’s duty to manage their own caseload in a manner that would allow them to
4 properly represent their client(s), and, prevent that attorney from causing unnecessary delay or work
5 for the court or opposing parties.
6 By GilBride’s own admission in her Motion To File Reply For Summary Judgment, she has
7 taken on so much work that she has to ask the court to delay its proceedings in order to allow her to
8 attend to other cases. In doing so, she admits that her caseload is causing a conflict with her
9 responsibility to her clients and will cause unnecessary delay to this com and plaintiff
10 By GilBride’s own actions, she has shown that the size of her caseload is so impassible that she
11 does not have time to diligently review her own clients’ case file in order to realize that the reply she
12 sought to file was due over one—hundred and forty days prior to her request for a delay. As such, her
13 lack of available time has created work and expense for both the court and plaintiff by causing him
14 to prepare and submit pleadings to force the court to reverse the error caused by her erroneous
15 pleading.
16 In fact, the size of GilBride’s caseload is so taxing on her time, that she: a) attempts to serve
17 plaintiff at the wrong address,2 and, b) has begun sending copies of her pleadings to persons whom
18 are not even party to this action (Craig Mousel, counsel for State of Arizona Personnel Board).3
19 Lastly, in plaintiffs motion he cites the possibility that the reason for defendants’ retention of
20 GilBride could possibly be to "rack up legal fees" in the hope that should they prevail they could
21 impose greater harm upon plaintiff or, that she has some relationship with this court that would
22 cause it to act in a manner prejudicial or biased against plaintiff Gi1Bride responds to this in her
2 See Certificate Of Service, Doc. #60, #
3 See Certificate Of Service, Doc. #68, #69, #72, #77, & #78)
2
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 81 Filed 11/O1/2005 Page 2 of 4

1 reply by stating, “lj" Plaintif is afraid of losing his case and paying legal fees, then he should seek
2 the Courts permission to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit". "(1d. at 2) While such itself merely
3 reinforces plaintiff s claim that this may be the reason behind retention of GilBride, the argument
4 itself is mooted by plaintiff s bankruptcy that discharged all claims against him. Furthermore, as
5 GilBride makes no effort to deny that she has some relationship with this court that may cause bias
6 or prejudice against plaintiff] she therefore gives grounds to compel her and this court to provide
7 plaintiff with a forthright disclosure of any relationship between the court and defendants or their
8 counsel. This court (and all counsel appearing before it) are required to avoid even the merest hint of
9 prejudice as 'the protection of the integrity and dignity of the judicial process from any hint or
10 appearance of bias is the palladium of our judicial system.' United States v. Columbia Broadcasting
11 System Inc., 497 F.2d 107, 109 (Sth Cir. 1974). Any question of a judge‘s impartiality threatens the
12 purity of the judicial process and its institutions." Id. See also, United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238,
13 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
14 HI. SUMMARY
15 Clearly, if GilBride can’t even keep track of her own case calendar, or, the names and addresses
16 of the parties involved, this case is more than she can handle and therefore she is ethically required
17 to withdraw. He failure to due so has caused expense to plaintiff and caused this court to act in a
18 manner that is in error and prejudicial and biased against plaintiff
19 IV. CONCLUSION
20 This court is compelled to order Gi1Bride to withdraw as her insurmountable caseload has
21 imposed a burden upon both the plaintiff and this court.
22 The court (and defendants’ counsel) are further compelled by its own code of ethics to provide a
23 forthright disclosure of any past or present relationship between such to plaintiff
24
3
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 81 Filed 11/O1/2005 Page 3 of 4

1
2 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1** day of NOVEMBER 2005.
3
4 BY A Am ’
5 Scott M. McNair, Plaintiff Pro Se
6
7 ORIGINAL and COPY FILED this day with:
3 Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
9 District of Arizona
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
10 401 W. Washington Street, Suite 130
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118
11
12 COPY of the forgoing HAND-DELIVERED this same day to:
13 Office of the Maricopa County Attorney
Attn: Dan Brenden
14 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
15 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(Counsel for Defendants: Maricopa County, Medlin, Peterson, & Ramsey)
16
17 COPY of the forgoing MAILED this same day to
18 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Attn: Eileen Dennis Gi1Bride
19 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85012,
20
21
22
23
24
4
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 81 Filed 11/O1/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 81

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 81

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 81

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 81

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 4 of 4