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.

Rodrigues v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

February 28, 2018

Anthony L Rodrigues, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles L Ryan, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.

         This Order sets forth the Court's rulings on a number of pending Motions (Docs. 89, 94, 101, 104, 108, 120, 124).

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's “Notice and Motion to Compel Answer to First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 101)

         On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff moved for an order requiring Defendants to answer Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 101). The Motion will be denied as the Court granted Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 99). (Doc. 98). The undersigned has screened the Second Amended Complaint in a Report and Recommendation that is currently pending before the District Judge. (Doc. 103).

         B. Plaintiff's “Motion to Stay Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Court Order” (Doc. 104); Plaintiff's “Notice and Motion to Compel Production and Renewed Request for Order of Protection” (Doc. 89); and Defendants' “Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoenas” (Docs. 94)

         On January 2, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 91). Defendants concede that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to a property loss claim that the Court dismissed. (Doc. 7 at 6-7; Doc. 91 at 13). Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the remaining threat-to-safety, negligence, and negligent training claims. (Doc. 91 at 13). The Court has stayed all discovery unrelated to the exhaustion issue pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 91). (Doc. 109).

         On January 11, 2018, Plaintiff moved to stay the Motion for Summary Judgment on the following grounds:

Defendants' [sic] have not filed a [sic] Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff has not had sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery of records, documents and information in the possession of the Defendants' [sic] and unnamed third parties evidencing Defendants' efforts to frustrate, impede, obstruct or create unnecessary and unreasonable barriers to Plaintiffs [sic] and other similarly situated individuals exhaustion of ADOC administrative remedies . . . .

(Doc. 104 at 1). Prior to filing the Motion to Stay (Doc. 104), Plaintiff filed a “Notice and Motion to Compel Production and Renewed Request for Order of Protection” (Doc. 89). Plaintiff states that he served a subpoena duces tecum on Correctional Officer III (“CO III”) T. McNamer that commanded production of documents regarding “the processing and handling of ADOC inmate ASPC Kingman riot related informal/formal request for administrative remedies, including monthly statistical report/summary for the period beginning July 2015 through December 2015.” (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff requests that the Court order CO III McNamer to show cause why CO III McNamer should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum. (Id. at 3-4).[1] Defendants move to quash the subpoena served on CO III McNamer. (Doc. 94). Defendants also move to quash the subpoenas duces tecum that Plaintiff purportedly served on Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) Division Director Joe Profiri, ADOC Deputy Director Jeff Hood, ADOC Inspector General Greg Lauchner, and Governor Doug Ducey. (Id.). As recounted by Defendants:

The subpoena to ADC Division Director Profiri demands production of “Any and all electronic/written communications/correspondence, investigative reports, written summaries, memoranda or other documents addressed to/received from ADOC Director Charles L. Ryan, ADOC Deputy Director Jeff Hood and Contract Beds Operations Bureau Director Tara Diaz regarding, pertaining to or involving the July 2015 Arizona State Prison Complex-Kingman riots and termination of contract AD9-010-A3.” [Doc. 94-2 at 1].
The subpoena to ADC Deputy Director Hood demands production of: “Any and all electronic/written communications/correspondence, investigative reports/ summaries or other documents, photographs, digital images or video addressed/recieved [sic] from any State agency/department employee/representative, private entity/corporation regarding, pertaining to [sic] involving the July 2015 riots at ASPC Kingman and subsequent termination of ADOC correctional services contract AD9-010-A3.” [Doc. 94-3 at 1].
The subpoena to Mr. Lauchner demands production of “Any and all electronic/written communications/correspondence, investigative reports/summaries photographs/video/digital images, addressed/received from any State agency/Dept. employee, representative, private entity/corporation/person regarding, pertaining to/involving the July 2015 ASPC-Kingman riots and subsequent termination of ADOC correctional services contract AD9-010-A3.” [Doc. 94-4 at 1].

(Doc. 94 at 3-4). Defendants also explain that although Plaintiff filed a document (Doc. 71-4) indicating that he served a subpoena on Governor Ducey, Governor Ducey's office has no record of receiving a subpoena from Plaintiff. (Doc. 94 at 3; Doc. 94-1 at 3). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants do not have standing to move to quash the subpoenas directed to non-parties. (Doc. 110 at 1-2; Doc. 120 at 2). In the interest of judicial economy, the Court does not resolve the issue because grounds exist for sua sponte quashing the subpoenas duces tecum, as explained below. Elite Lighting v. DMF, Inc., Case No. CV 13-1920 JC, 2013 WL 12142840, at *3 (C.D. ...


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.