Essenfeld v. Dulgov

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
Theodore E Essenfeld,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Dulgov, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00294-TUC-JGZ (JR)
ORDER
On October 30, 2025, Petitioner Theodore E Essenfeld filed an untitled Motion.
(Doc. 27.) Petitioner does not indicate pursuant to which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,
or other legal theory, he has filed the Motion. (See id.) In the Motion, Petitioner asserts
new facts and claims not included in the Petition or any briefing. (Id. at 1.) To the extent
Petitioner wishes to include these allegations in his Petition, Petitioner must request leave
of court to either file an amended petition or otherwise supplement the record. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2); LRCiv. 15.1.
Further, Petitioner reiterates legal arguments found in his reply to the Respondent’s
Response. (See Doc. 27 at 2; Doc. 26 at 4.) Petitioner cites no new legal authority to support
his position, nor requests any additional relief not found in the Petition. (See Doc. 27 at 2.)
Petitioner does not cite a rule or other legal theory which allows him to file a second reply
to the Respondent’s response. (See Doc. 27.) Because Petitioner’s arguments and requested
relief are duplicative those found in the Petitioner’s reply, the Petitioner’s Motion will be
Case 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Document 28 Filed 11/03/25 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
denied. See Meeks v. McClintock, 2015 WL 4524002, *2 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2015) (denying
petitioner’s request to supplement petition with duplicative legal defenses contained in
previous briefing).
IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 27) is denied.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Document 28 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 2