Theodore E Essenfeld v. Unknown Dulgov, et al.

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Theodore E Essenfeld, No. CV-25-00294-TUC-JGZ (JR) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Unknown Dulgov, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 On October 30, 2025, Petitioner Theodore E Essenfeld filed an untitled Motion.

17 (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.

23 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.)

26 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 1|| 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).

4 IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 27) is denied.

5 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025. “yeguelieh Keston 8 Hofforable Jacqueline M. Rateau 9 United States Magistrate Judge _2-