Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harrison v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 26, 2016

Chad Lucas Harrison, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles L Ryan, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Eileen S. Willett, United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Chad Lucas Harrison, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Defendants Malachinski, Corizon CEO, Johnson, and McKamey to answer the Complaint and dismissed Defendant Ryan without prejudice (Doc. 10 at 10). All Defendants have answered, and all issues are now joined (Docs. 27-30). Plaintiff filed a “Motion; Requestng [sic] emergency TRO, and emergency injunction” (Doc. 4). The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order (Doc. 10 at 10). The Court also denied in part Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiff’s claims regarding infection and his request for housing in a single-man cell (Doc. 26 at 9). The Court has set Plaintiff’s claims for epilepsy medication for a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on June 7, 2016 (Doc. 26 at 10).

         Several motions are pending before the Court.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Clarification . . .” (Doc. 12) and “Motion Requesting Clarification and Document #10 to be Re-Sent to Plaintiff” (Doc. 15)

         Plaintiff has filed duplicative “Motions Requesting Clarification . . .” (Docs. 12, 15) in which Plaintiff states he did not receive a copy of the Court’s Order (Doc. 10) dismissing Charles L. Ryan from this matter. Plaintiff requests the Court to send him a copy of the Court’s Order (Doc. 10). Plaintiff’s request is granted. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s Order (Doc. 10). To the extent Plaintiff seeks further explanation of the content of the Court’s Order, the Court finds that the Order (Doc. 10) speaks for itself.

         In addition, Plaintiff is warned that he should not file duplicative motions on any subject matter in this case. If Plaintiff does file such duplicative motions, the Court will strike such motions without further notice to Plaintiff and without considering the additional arguments contained in the subsequently filed motions.

         B. Defendants’ “Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response” (Doc. 14)

         In their Motion (Doc. 14), Defendants request that the April 4, 2016 deadline for filing their response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 4) be extended to April 18, 2016. Plaintiff opposes the extension of time on the ground that he is not in good health and “has been forced to wait a long time already . . . .” (Doc. 21). These statements do not show Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a fourteen day extension of Defendants’ response time. The Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause for the extension, and the Motion (Doc. 14) is granted. Defendants’ Response (Doc. 22) filed on April 18, 2016 is deemed timely.

         C. Plaintiff’s “Notice of Change of Address and Request Court Intervention” (Doc. 16)

         On April 11, 2016, the Clerk of Court docketed “Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address and Request Court Intervention” (Doc. 16). Plaintiff’s filing notifies the Court of his new address and also requests the Court to stop prison personnel from “repeatedly moving Plaintiff from isolation cell to isolation cell . . . .” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that the frequent cell moves are done to “prevent Plaintiff the personal property he needs and books to properly file documents with the Court.” (Id.).

         The Court’s February 2016 Order (Doc. 10 at 9) instructed that “Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address.” However, in light of Plaintiff’s averment that he did not receive a copy of the Order (Doc. 10), the Court will not strike Plaintiffs filing (Doc. 16). The Court has directed the Clerk of Court to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the Order. Plaintiff is cautioned to carefully read the Order and comply with all of the requirements therein. Failure to comply with any provision of the Order (Doc. 10) may result in dismissal of this action.

         Plaintiff’s request for Court intervention is construed as a motion for injunctive relief and is referred to the District Court Judge for consideration.[1]

         D. Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Court Subpoena ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.