USA v. Ruelas 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
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Silvester Ruelas,
Defendant.
No. CR-17-00317-1-PHX-JAT
ORDER
On June 22, 2026, Defendant Ruelas moved for a copy of the Court’s docket in this
case. The Court issued the following Order:
Defendant Silvester Ruelas, who is presently incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution, has filed a motion for a copy of “my court
docket detailing ECF filings.” (Doc. 358). The Court’s ECF docket sheet in
this case (not including any of the underlying filings themselves) is 53 pages
as of today.
Mr. Ruelas has failed to articulate a reason he would require a copy
of the ECF docket in this case. Further, Mr. Ruelas has failed to explain why
he cannot obtain whatever portions of his file he seeks from his attorney. Mr.
Ruelas does not have in forma pauperis status for purposes of 28 U.S.C §
1915(c) or 28 U.S.C. 753(f).
Moreover, since February 18, 2020, when Mr. Ruelas filed his motion
to vacate, correct or set aside sentence (Doc. 268), and continuing through
Mr. Ruelas’ multiple motions for release (Docs. 277, 331, 337, and 343), all
of the filings relevant to Mr. Ruelas have been sent to Mr. Ruelas because he
is a pro se litigant. The Court will not resend all of the filings that were
previously sent; nor will the Court chronicle all of those filings for Mr.
Ruelas. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006); Pliler
v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act
as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Ruelas’ motion for copies of
court records (Doc. 358)….
(Doc. 359).
Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT Document 361 Filed 08/20/26 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
Defendant Ruelas has moved for reconsideration of the denial. (Doc. 360). In his
motion, Defendant Ruelas still fails to articulate a legitimate reason he seeks the docket
sheet in this case. Specifically, Defendant Ruelas claims he wants the docket sheet to
decide which filings he wishes to request. However, as previously noted, all filings since
2020 have already been sent to Defendant Ruelas. (Docs. 268–360). Defendant Ruelas
has failed to explain any need for any filings prior to 2020.
Further, of the 360 docket entries in this case, many of them relate to Defendant
Ruelas’ co-Defendants, not Defendant Ruelas. Defendant Ruelas has offered no
explanation as to why he would need information on his co-Defendants.
Finally, Defendant Ruelas says he cannot request the pre-2020 filings from his
former counsel because counsel is deceased. Former counsel’s firm is still in existence,
and Defendant Ruelas has not discussed whether he reached out to his former counsel’s
still-practicing partner for a copy of Defendant Ruelas’ file.
For all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 360) is denied.
Dated this 20th day of August, 2026.
Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT Document 361 Filed 08/20/26 Page 2 of 2