United States District Court, D. Arizona
Anthony L. Rodrigues, Plaintiff,
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Anthony L. Rodrigues is a pro se prisoner currently confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Corrections Corporation of America’s (“CCA”) Red Rock Correctional Center (“RRCC”) in Eloy, Arizona. On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint involves his incarceration at Arizona State Prison Complex-Kingman. The Court ordered Defendants to answer Count Two and dismissed all other claims. (Doc. 16 at 7). All Defendants have timely answered or responded and all issues are joined. (Docs. 27, 29, 66).
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. 21, 22) to which Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26).
Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order involves his incarceration at RRCC.
Several motions are deemed ripe for consideration and are discussed below.
I. “Defendants Ryan and Diaz’s Motion to Permit Supplemental Briefing on Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order [Docs. 21, 22, 26].” (Doc. 31)
Defendants Ryan and Diaz request the opportunity to supplement their responsive briefing to specifically address the conditions of confinement at RRCC, the facility in which Plaintiff is currently housed. In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. 21 and 22), Plaintiff alleges that his conditions of confinement at RRCC violate his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment due to Plaintiff’s exposure to second-hand smoke. Plaintiff also alleges a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation, stating that RRCC is denying Plaintiff access to legal materials and the Courts. Information concerning the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement at RRCC is clearly relevant to a full consideration of the injunctive relief requested. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”); see also Amor v. Arizona, No. CV-06-499-TUC-CKJ, 2010 WL 960379 at *15 (D. Ariz. March 15, 2010) (“Defendants have the right to defend against allegations in a court of law.”). However, Plaintiff objects to the request to supplement because (i) he did not receive a copy of Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 31) and (ii) the Motion is “overly broad and generalized.” (Doc. 34 at 2).
The Court finds that Defendants mailed Plaintiff a copy of the Defendants’ request to supplement at Plaintiff’s address of record. See Defendants’ Notice of Mailing (Doc. 36). More than sufficient time has passed to allow Plaintiff to review the document. In addition, supplemental briefing will assist the Court in deciding the issues raised by Plaintiff.
Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendants Ryan and Diaz’s Motion to Permit Supplemental Briefing (Doc. 31).
II. “Plaintiffs’ [sic] Motion to Strike Defendant(s) Opposition to Request for Preliminary Injunction and TRO” (Doc. 41)
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26) because Plaintiff did not receive the document until October 28, 2015. Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 26) was filed on October 5, 2015. Plaintiff argues that he received Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 26) after response time pursuant to Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P., had run, precluding Plaintiff from filing a response.
As Defendants’ Notice of Mailing (Doc. 36) reflects, Defendants mailed Plaintiff a copy of Defendants’ Opposition to Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26). Plaintiff, in fact, received Defendants’ Opposition. Delayed receipt of Defendants’ Opposition is not a basis to strike Defendants’ Opposition. Pursuant to Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. 21, 22). Defendants have responded. Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P., does not provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to respond to a response. If Plaintiff wanted to file a reply, he certainly could have done so after service of Defendants’ Opposition as reflected in Defendants’ Notice of Mailing (Doc. 36). See LRCiv 7.2(d) (“The moving party . . . shall have seven (7) days after service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply memorandum if that party so desires.”) Instead, Plaintiff chose to file a Motion to Strike. “[A] motion to strike may be filed only if it is authorized by statute or rule, such as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), 26(g)(2), or 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), or if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.” LRCiv 7.2(m). Plaintiff cites the Court to no rule or statute which authorizes his Motion to Strike. Nor does the Court find such relief appropriate in this case.
No prejudice has inured to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed “Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 32). He has had the opportunity to brief his position (Docs. 21, 22, 32). In addition, the Court will grant Defendants the opportunity to supplement their Opposition. When Defendants file the supplement to their Opposition, Plaintiff may ...