Friddle v. CoreCivic et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Danny Friddle,
Plaintiff,
v.
CoreCivic, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-02414-PHX-KML (MBM)
ORDER
At issue is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Late Filing (Doc. 197), which asks
the Court for permission to file a late reply to Defendants’ response (Doc. 186) to Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions (Doc. 183). Plaintiff claims he received a copy of Defendants’
response on August 20, 2026, but because of a facility lockdown, he could not access the
law library to prepare a reply until August 31, 2026, after his reply deadline expired. (Doc.
197 at 1-2.)
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for two reasons. First, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on September 1, 2026 (Doc. 191), rendering his request to
file a late reply moot. Second, nothing in Plaintiff’s proposed reply (lodged at Doc. 198)
would change the resolution of his motion for sanctions. The Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions because Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(c)(2) by serving it on Defendants at least 21 days before filing it. (Doc. 191
at 1.) In his proposed reply, Plaintiff acknowledges he failed to comply with this rule and
Case 2:23-cv-02414-KML-MBM Document 200 Filed 09/16/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
asks the Court to construe his motion as service under Rule 11(c)(2). (Doc. 198 at 2.)
Regardless of how Plaintiff now wishes the Court to construe his motion for sanctions, it
remains true that Plaintiff filed it prematurely.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Late Filing (Doc. 197)
is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-02414-KML-MBM Document 200 Filed 09/16/26 Page 2 of 2