Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-cv-01839-BNB.
October 1, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the pro se "Motion to Add Crucial Exhibit (E) Just Provided to Plaintiffs," submitted to the Court on September 27, 2007, purportedly by both Plaintiffs, Mikeal Glenn Stine and Raymond Oechsle. In the Motion, Plaintiffs request that the attached 200-plus page document attached to the Motion be filed as Exhibit E in the Complaint.
On September 18, 2007, the Court instructed Plaintiffs that at this time the only proper filing in the instant action is a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 that is completed and signed by Mr. Oechsle. A Motion and Affidavit was received by the Court on September 20, 2007. The Motion and Affidavit form is completed in Mr. Stine's handwriting and has a signature for Mr. Oechsle. Although the signature by Mr. Oechsle is of doubtful authenticity, the Court entered an order on September 24, 2007, granting Plaintiffs leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915 and directing Mr. Oechsle to pay a $3.00 initial partial filing fee.
In the Order of September 24, 2007, Plaintiffs again were instructed, as they were instructed in the Order of September 18, 2007, that one Plaintiff may not sign any filings submitted to the Court on the other Plaintiff's behalf. Signing a document for another person, as Mr. Stine is well aware, see United States v. Stine, No. 94-mc-00044-PGR (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 1994), is criminal contempt of court.
On September 25, 2007, a second Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was filed with the Court. This Motion and Affidavit is not completed in Mr. Stine's handwriting and contains a signature for Mr. Oechsle that is different than the signature provided on the Motion and Affidavit submitted to the Court on September 20, 2007, that allegedly had been signed by Mr. Oechsle. The Court further notes that the handwriting in the September 25, 2007, Motion and Affidavit is similar to the handwriting in a Letter submitted to the Court by Mr. Oechsle on August 31, 2007.
Again, the Court instructs Plaintiffs that all documents submitted to the Court must contain authentic signatures by both Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may not sign a filing on the other's behalf.
The 200 page Exhibit is premature and simply is another tactic by Mr. Stine to inundate the Court with unnecessary filings. The Exhibit is a copy of the BOP's complete Program Statement dealing with inmate security designation and custody classification. Mr. Stine fails to address the relevancy of the Exhibit or the need at this time for the Court to incorporate it as part of the Court Record. Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to strike the Motion filed September 27, 2007, and attached Exhibit.
Mr. Stine and Mr. Oechsle are warned that if they continue to inundate the Court with unnecessary filings the Complaint and action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Again, as Plaintiffs were instructed in the September 24, 2007, Order, the only proper filing at this time is the $3.00 payment. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs' September 27, 2007, filing. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of the instant Order to both Plaintiffs.