United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court are a number of motions. The Court has
reviewed the motions and issues its rulings as set forth
Defendants’ “Motion for Clarification of an Order
(Doc. 104)” (Doc. 120)
November 19, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring
Defendants Burke, Basso, and Contreras to answer
Plaintiff’s three-count Complaint (Doc. 1). (Doc. 13).
The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for leave to file
a First Amended Complaint that amended Counts Two and Three
and named as additional defendants Correctional Officer II
Schiavo and Deputy Warden Van Winkle. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff
filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 60),  and on April 13,
2016, the Court issued a screening order (Doc. 104) requiring
Defendants Burke, Basso, and Contreras to answer Counts One,
Two, and Three of the First Amended Complaint. The Court
dismissed without prejudice Deputy Van Winkle and ordered
Defendant Schiavo to answer Count Three.
19, 2016, Defendants filed a “Motion for Clarification
of an Order (Doc.104)” (Doc. 120). Defendants seek
clarification as to whether Defendant Basso must respond to
Count One of the First Amended Complaint. The Court ordered
Defendant Basso to answer the original three-count Complaint.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did not materially
amend Count 1. The Court’s April 13, 2016 Order
(Doc.104) speaks for itself and no further clarification is
needed. Moreover, as Defendant Basso has answered all three
counts of the First Amended Complaint, the Motion for
Clarification is now moot. (Doc. 121 at 2). Defendants’
Motion for Clarification (Doc.120) will be denied.
Defendants’ “Motion to Strike Stacey [sic] Estes
Scheff’s Limited Notice of Appearance (DKT. 118) and
Request to Provide Guidance” (Doc. 122)
10, 2016, attorney Stacy Scheff filed a “Notice of
Appearance (Limited Scope-Motion for Sanctions re: Doc
111)” (Doc. 118) (the “Limited Notice of
Appearance”). The Limited Notice of Appearance states
that the “Law Office of Stacy Scheff hereby enters its
appearance” for Plaintiff for the “limited scope
of pursuing a Motion for Sanctions against Assistant Attorney
General Lucy Rand, and Defendants Contreras & Burke
arising from Doc. 111, Motion for Reconsideration.”
31, 2016, Defendants filed a “Motion to Strike Stacey
[sic] Estes Scheff’s Limited Notice of Appearance (DKT.
118) and Request to Provide Guidance” (Doc. 122).
Defendants assert that no local or federal procedural rule
allows an attorney to make a limited scope appearance in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona and
move to strike the Limited Notice of Appearance. (Doc. 122).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize
or prohibit an attorney’s limited scope appearance in a
federal action. While the Local Rules of Civil Procedure in
some districts expressly authorize limited scope appearances,
the Local Rules of Civil Procedure in the District of Arizona
are silent as to such appearances. See, e.g., D.
Kan. Civ. R. 83.5.8; D.N.H. Civ. R. 83.7.
83(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
when there is no controlling law, a “judge may regulate
practice in any manner consistent with federal law, rules
adopted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 and 2075, and the
district’s local rules.” As Defendants
acknowledge (Doc. 134 at 2), judges in the District of
Arizona have allowed attorneys to appear in prisoner civil
rights cases for the limited scope of participating in the
Court’s inmate mediation program. A limited scope
appearance is not inconsistent with federal law or the
Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court
therefore finds that under Rule 83(b), it may allow Ms.
Scheff to appear for the limited purpose of pursuing
sanctions with respect to Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration. The Court further finds good cause to permit
Ms. Scheff to make a limited scope appearance for that
purpose. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’
“Motion to Strike the Stacey [sic] Estes Scheff’s
Limited Notice of Appearance (DKT. 118)” (Doc. 122).
Court will grant Defendants’ “Request to Provide
Guidance” (Doc. 122) as follows: unless the Limited
Notice of Appearance (Doc. 118) is amended, Ms. Scheff is
allowed to participate in this matter only with respect to
(i) Plaintiff’s “Notice of Intent to Seek
Sanctions” (Doc. 119); (ii) Plaintiff’s
“Motion for Sanctions Re: Doc 111” (Doc.125);
(iii) Defendants’ “Motion to Strike Notice of
Intent to Seek Sanctions . . . .” (Doc.123); and (iv)
Defendants’ “Motion to Strike or Summarily Deny
Motion for Sanctions(doc. 125)” (Doc. 127).
Defendants’ “Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to
Seek Sanctions and Exhibit (Dkts. 119, 119-1) and to Bar
Motion for Sanctions” (Doc. 123)
10, 2016, Plaintiff, through his limited scope attorney,
filed a “Notice of Intent to Seek Sanctions”
(Doc. 119) stating that unless Defendants withdraw their
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 111) within twenty-one days,
Plaintiff will seek sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Procedure. Attached to the Notice is a
“Motion for Sanctions re: Doc ...