From Judge John Tuchi's order last week in Doe v. City of Scottsdale (D. Ariz.):

Plaintiff filed a motion for "reasonable accommodations pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act … and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act … to ensure equal access to the Court and effective participation in pretrial proceedings." Plaintiff requests the Court make the following accommodations: (1) to conduct pretrial matters in writing only, or to the extent in-person hearings are required, to hear the parties by telephone or video-disabled conference only; (2) to permit Plaintiff "to seek written clarification" of orders before the Court issues her adverse consequences; (3) to refrain from issuing sanctions in the event Plaintiff's filings demonstrate "deviations in formatting, length, or explanatory detail"; and (4) limiting discovery, depositions, and meet-and-confer procedures to written format only.

The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff prefers to participate in this matter through writing, and the Court will keep that preference in mind. Ultimately, though, the Court has inherent authority to manage its docket, maintain decorum of the parties before it, and promulgate and enforce rules for the management of litigation. The Court observes that its general administration of matters does typically occur in writing or by telephone, but it declines to restrain its authority to address the parties in-person to the extent it becomes warranted or necessary.

As is customary, every action taken by the Court is documented on the record to which Plaintiff can refer as needed. The Court always endeavors to make its expectations and directives of the parties clear and plain. While Plaintiff may deem it necessary to file documents seeking relief or moving to clarify an order, she should not regard her ability to file those documents as a wholesale ticket to inundate the Court with frivolity on the account of wanting to provide "explanatory detail." Plaintiff basically requests that she file anything without regard for reason or consequence. That is not the way this works. Documents filed with the Court must arise from either rule or law, not merely from a party's whim. Even as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona, or the rules of this Court.

Similarly, the Court will not cabin discovery or inter-party communication methods to writing only. As often is the case, the parties may find email to be the most effective and convenient way to communicate, and Plaintiff is welcome to explore this possibility with the opposing parties as appropriate. And, as Plaintiff herself recognizes, most discovery is conducted in writing, such as interrogatories and requests for admission. There are times, though, when discovery occurs outside the four corners of a piece of paper. Examples include inspection of land pursuant to a request for production, physical or mental examinations of a party, or oral depositions. "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow a party to select the method or methods of discovery and the order of discovery methods used," and the Court declines to prospectively limit any party's discovery at this stage of the proceedings.

Turning now to Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court observes that it is 159 pages long and contains over 900 paragraphs of allegations and 46 claims restating some variation of a single claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C § 1983. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and demands "simplicity, directness, and clarity." There is nothing short and plain about the Complaint, and its sheer volume and tediousness renders it incomprehensible.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When, as here, a defective complaint might be cured, a party is entitled an opportunity to amend it before the action is dismissed. Therefore, Plaintiff may, if she so chooses, amend her pleading to make clear her allegations in short, plain statements for each claim for relief, identify which specific defendants are responsible for the conduct giving rise to each claim, the damages resulting from that conduct, and the basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Those statements should be made "in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances."

Plaintiff's motion doesn't go into detail as to the nature of her alleged disability, other than to allege that her disabilities "affect[] information processing and communication under high-stress or unstructured oral conditions."

The post Court Declines Pro Se Litigant's Request for Certain Disability Accommodations appeared first on Reason.com.