US Courts & Law
Chapter 9



City State Zip


Creditor / Collection agency / Credit Bureau / Trustee on NOD


City State Zip

Certified Mail # 


This notice is in compliance with and under 15 USC §§1601, 1692 et seq.

Reference: Account # 

Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.  §§  1601, 1692 et seq, this constitutes timely written notice that I decline to pay the attached erroneous purported debt which is unsigned and unattested, and which I hereby cancel in its entirety without dishonor on the grounds of breach, false representation and fraud.

15 U.S.C.  §1692(e) states that a “false, deceptive, and misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” includes the false representation of the character of legal status of any debt and further makes a threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken a deceptive practice. 

Such Notice omits information which should have been disclosed, such as citations, disclosing that agency’s jurisdictional and statutory authority.  Said Notice further contains, false, deceptive and misleading representations, and allegations intended to intentionally pervert the truth for the purpose of inducing one, in reliance upon such, to part with property belonging to them and to surrender certain substantive legal and statutory rights.  To act upon this Notice would divest one of his/her property and/or their prerogative rights, resulting in legal injury.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692(g)(4) Validation of Debts, if you have evidence to validate the claim that the attached presentment does not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation and that one owes this alleged debt, this is a demand that, within 30 days, you will provide such validation and supporting evidence and competent witness to substantiate your claim.  Until the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act have been met and your claim is validated,  you have no jurisdiction to continue any collection activities, including, but not limited to, reporting to any/all credit bureau reporting agencies.   

This is a constructive notice that, absent the validation of your claim within 30 days, you must cease and desist and and all collection activity and are prohibited from contacting me, through mail, by telephone, in person, at my home, or at my work.  You are further prohibited from contacting my employer, my bank or any other third party associated with me, directly or indirectly.  Each and every attempted contact, in violation of this Act, will constitute harassment, defamation of character, and slander of credit of reputation which will subject your agency and/or board, and any and all agents in his/her/their individual capacities, who take part in such harassment, and duration, to a liability for actual damages, as well as statutory damages of up to $1,000.00 for each and every violation, and any further liability for legal fees to be paid to any counsel which I may retain.  Further, absent such validation of your claim, you are prohibited from filing any notice of lien and/or levy and are also barred from reporting any derogatory credit information to any Credit Reporting Agency, regarding this disputed purported debt.

I hereby declare that the above information is true and correct.


Motion to Compel Discovery


Comes the plaintiff JOHN L. DOE and moves this court to compel defendant (name of defendant not answering interrogatories) to answer his interrogatories. In support of this motion plaintiff would show:


1.      On the            day of_______ , 2013 plaintiff, after the commencement of the above-entitled action, served on defendant (name of defendant not answering interrogatories) in this cause certain interrogatories in writing pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


2.      No answer to the above mentioned interrogatories have been served and more than 30 days have elapsed since they were served and there has been no enlargement of time to answer nor have any objections to the interrogatories been served.


WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves for an Order requiring defendant (name of defendant) to answer the interrogatories within five days of the date of the service of said order, and, providing that if said defendant fails to serve sworn answers with that time the clerk of this court enter default against said defendant in the above cause pursuant to Rule 55 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


Respectfully submitted,

JOHN L. DOE, pro se Number and address

Certificate of Service I, John L. Doe, hereby certify


Sample Interrogatories



Richmond, District


















TO: ________________________________________


Plaintiffs propounded the following interrogatories to the defendant, ___________________________, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You are directed to answer the same fully in writing under oath within the time provided by the Federal Rules.


1.      List by name and address all penal institutions or institutions of corrections and rehabilitation in Virginia such as prisons, prison farms or ranches, juvenile or youth centers, halfway houses, county, city or town jails, or road camps, and other state and local penal or correctional institutions.


2.      List separately for each institution enumerated in your answer to question 1, the following data:


a.                     The total number of books in each library

b.                     List separately the number of books classed as Fiction, non-fiction, reference.

c.                     List the number of books about African American culture (by or about Asiatics). (Asiatic Black-man)


Petition for a Writ of Mandamus



Petitioner JOHN L. DOE moves the court for leave to file the attached petitioner for a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative, a writ of prohibition, in forma pauperis, directing the Honorable (name of district court judge), United States District Court Judge for the District of , respondent, to show cause why a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition should not issue against him in accordance with the prayer in the attached petition and why the petitioner should not have such additional relief as the case may require.

Petitioner is proceeding in forma pauperis in the instant proceeding below.

JOHN L. DOE, pro se Number and address



Memorandum of Law

In Mango v American Radiator and standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (third Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (alternative holding), the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of an anti-trust suit "solely for inexcusable failure to answer interrogatories."

Finally in Seano v Bair Transport Company of Delaware, Inc., 54 F.R.D. 35 E.D. Pa. 1971), entry of default judgement was ordered for failure of defendants to satisfactorily answer all the plaintiff's interrogatories. See also, Cromaglass Corp v. Ferm, 344 F. Supp. 924 (M.D. Mo. 1970).

Defendants herein have alleged in their Answer to the Complaint that plaintiff has been "malicious" and this action was commenced "only for purposes of harassment by plaintiff's and by his 'next friend'." (Answer, p. 5) However, plaintiff's factual allegations are made in good faith and are substantiated by the record. It would appear that defendant considers plaintiff's attempts to utilize the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as being "malicious". Moreover, it would appear that defendant, because he is a prison official and plaintiff is a prisoner, considers himself exempt from the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, there exists no such exemption in the Rules.

It is clear that the Supreme Court of the United States recognized the right of prisoners to avail themselves of all tools necessary to perfect a legal action, both habeas and civil. Df. Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105, 110 (N.D. Cal. 1971), aff d sub nom., Younger V. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1972) Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969)

The procedural rules embodies in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not discriminate between prisoners and non-prisoners. Defendant, in refusing to answer plaintiff's interrogatories, has flagrantly interfered with the efficient administration of justice. However, when the coin is turned and defendant desires answers to his interrogatories, he is fast to complain. For example, in Denson v. United States, No L-1752 (D.Kan. 1972) the government filed interrogatories upon one Richard Montgomery. Montgomery objected to it.

Thereafter, Assistant United States Attorney prepared and filed a motion to compel (filed May 6, 2013). This court ordered that Montgomery answer. The government, under the Rules, is no less obligated to comply with the law than the prisoner does Richard Montgomery does.

WHEREFORE, the court should enter an appropriate order compelling defendant to answer the interrogatories heretofore filed within five (5) days of said order, and

FURTHER, if defendant fails to answer within the five (5) days allowed in the court's order, the clerk of this court should enter default against the defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN L. DOE, pro se Number and address Dated:


Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories


Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

On October 8, 2013, plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories.
This memorandum is submitted in support thereof and addresses the appropriateness of sanctions in this case.

Plaintiff filed his first set of interrogatories herein on March 21, 2013. These Interrogatories 
Were addressed to defendant_______________________ , (official title) who works at the (name of prison)

Defendant_______________________ was duly served with these interrogatories by United States Marshal

(Name of Marshal) on______________________ , 2013 See USM-285, the Marshal's Return, attached to plaintiff's motion to compel.

To date plaintiff has not received answers to his first set of interrogatories addressed to defendant . No objections to the interrogatories have been filed nor has defendant requested an enlargement of time or a protective order.

In its order of__________________ , 2013, this court concluded that someone should issue in this case so the action may proceed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure At the time of the court's order Judge________________________ had before him plaintiff's first

Set of interrogatories, which were served upon defendant____________________________ along with the summons and complaint.

The "applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" include Rule 33 and the other instruments of discovery. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 (d) provides that where one party fails to serve any answers or objections to interrogatories, the court "may make such orders in regard to the failure as is just." Ralph E. Weeks Co., Inc., v. Kearney, 57 F.R.D. 475 (M.D.Pa. 1974)

Plaintiff, in his Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, requested the court to issue such order, and further prayed that said order require the clerk of this court to enter default against defendant in the event he did not answer within 5 days of the order.
It is a settled proposition of law that the refusal of any party to answer interrogatories warrants the entry of default judgment against that party, or, in the case of refusal to answer by a party-plaintiff; the proper remedy is dismissal of the complaint. Sivelle v. Maloof, 373 F.2d 520 (first Cir. 1967); Ralph E. Weeks Co., Inc. v
Kearney, supra

In Hastings v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 411 F.2d 1201 (third Cir. 1969), the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing with prejudice a seaman's action for maintenance and care. The seaman had refused to answer interrogatories, and subsequently, he refused to appear for oral deposition. The Hastings court found that had plaintiff answered the interrogatories necessity for traveling at his own expense to be orally deposed might have been avoided. In any case, however, the court found that there "is no excuse for the failure to answer the interrogatories. 411 F.2d at 1202


Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal on Typewritten Forms (Caption)


Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal
on Typewritten Forms


Comes the appellant JOHN L. DOE and moves this court for leave to proceed on this appeal on typewritten forms. Appellant, in support of this motion, represents that he is unable, due to his poverty and imprisonment, to have his briefs and other papers printed in standard form as required by the Rules of this court.


Respectfully submitted,

JOHN L. DOE, pro se Number and address




Motion to Allow Service by Mail and to Dispense with Requirement of Security


Motion to Allow Service by Mail and Dispense

With Requirement of Security

Comes the petitioner JOHN L. DOE and moves this court to allow him to proceed with this action seeking a temporary restraining order by allowing service of process by mail and by dispensing with the requirement that petitioner give security during the pendency of this action. In support of his motion petition would show:

1. Petitioner is presently confined in (name of prison) and by virtue of his imprisonment is unable to personally serve a copy of the herewith application for a Temporary Restraining Order upon defendant(s).

2. Petitioner is an indigent prisoner without funds to give security for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined.

3. Petitioner submits that should this court grant his application for a Temporary Restraining Order, defendants will not suffer or be prejudiced in any way by the issuance of it.

4. This court has discretion under Rule 60(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with the requirement that petitioner give security prior to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. Urbain v. Knapp Bros. Mfg. Co., 217 F.2d 810, 820 (seventh Cir. 1954); International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 490 F.2d 1334, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932 (1974)

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully requests that this motion be granted in every respect. Respectfully submitted,

JOHN L. DOE, pro se Number and address

Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2013.



Motion to Reconsider Order


Motion to Reconsider Order

Or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave

to take an Interlocutory Appeal in Forma Pauperis

Comes the petitioner, JOHN L. DOE and moves the court to reconsider its order of (Date) which (describe order: for example "which dismissed damages, struck certain parties defendant had treated the Complaint, herein as a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus). In the alternative, petitioner respectfully requests leave to take an interlocutory appeal from said order in forma pauperis. The grounds of this motion are:

1. (In these paragraphs state the grounds for your objection of the particular order, or part of the order, that you are asking the court to modify. As an example of such grounds and how to state them see Chapter V, D, I, B).

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully requests that the court

1. (In these paragraphs state precisely how you want the district court to modify or change its previous order.)

2. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, petitioner requests leave to take an interlocutory appeal in forma pauperis to the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit from this court's

Order entered herein on , 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN L. DOE, pro se Number and address