cert_petition - Supreme Court U.S FILED 08-327 No ~ sBe SEP...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
No. Supreme Court, U.S. FILED 0 8 - 3 2 7 SEP 8- Z00~ OFFtOE OF THE CLERK ~. s’Be STATE OF ARIZONA; TERRY GODDARD, Arizona Attorney General; PAUL CARTER, Assistant Attorney General; DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director Of The Arizona Department Of Corrections, Petitioners, VS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; ROBERT V. TUZON, Respondents. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TERRY GODDARD Attorney General of Arizona DANIEL P. SCHAACK* PAUL E. CARTER Assistant Attorneys General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007-2997 (602) 542-7659 Counsel for Petitioners *Counsel of Record COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
QUESTIONS PRESENTED In suits filed pro se by inmates against prison employees and officials, judges of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona habitually issue orders requiring the Defendants, their attor- neys, and unnamed prison officials to investigate the inmates’ allegations and to file with the court and serve on the plaintiffs a verified report informing them of the facts learned from the investigation and identifying what responses the Department of Correc- tions would make to the allegations. There are sev- eral important questions about the district court’s power to enter such orders: 1. A rule of civil procedure promulgated by this Court requires the parties in most suits to exchange disclosure statements, but it specifically exempts suits filed pro se by prison inmates. Do the district judges have the power to, in essence, enact their own rule - inconsistent with this Court’s rule - requiring the defendants in pro-se inmate suits to unilaterally provide super disclosure statements? 2. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires inmates to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit; it does not allow them a second chance if they fail to properly and timely do so. The district judges’ orders require prison officials to respond to inmates’ allegations, even when their claims would be barred because they failed to exhaust administrative
Background image of page 2
ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued remedies available under’ prison grievance proce- dures. Does the district court have the power to abrogate the PLRA? 3. Under separation-of-powers principles, the judicial branch cannot co-.opt the executive branch involuntarily into performi.ng tasks for it. Similarly, under federalism principles, a federal court cannot co- opt a state government agency to do its bidding. Do district judges exceed powers by ordering state prison officials to investigate and report to the court on inmates’ unproven allegations? 4. Due process requires courts to act neutrally
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/13/2011 for the course POLS 3983 taught by Professor Ringsmuth during the Fall '10 term at Oklahoma State.

Page1 / 27

cert_petition - Supreme Court U.S FILED 08-327 No ~ sBe SEP...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online