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.

Gamez v. United States

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 19, 2018

Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, 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. 33, 41, 47, and 49).

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's “Motion for Clarification Whether Proposed Second Amended Complaint Supersedes Amended Petition to Return my Legal Boxes Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)- Request Ruling” (Doc. 33)

         In his January 5, 2018 Motion, Plaintiff requests a “ruling to my 24 Oct 17 Amended Petition to Return my Legal Boxe(s) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(g)[.]” (Doc. 33 at 4). On March 21, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff's “Petition to Return his Legal Boxe(s) Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)” (Doc. 15) and “Amended Petition to Return his Legal Boxe(s) Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)” (Doc. 19). (Doc. 50 at 8). Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (Doc. 33) will be denied as moot.

         B. Plaintiff's “Motion for Amendment of Scheduling Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 (B)” (Doc. 41)

         In his February 12, 2018 Motion (Doc. 41), Plaintiff requests a thirty day extension of the initial disclosure deadline. Defendants have not responded. See LRCiv 7.2(i). On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Supplement to (‘Gamez's') Motion for Amendment of Scheduling Order . . .” (Doc. 52) that indicates that Plaintiff still has not provided his initial disclosures. For good cause shown, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 41). Plaintiff's initial disclosure deadline is extended thirty days from the date of this Order.

         The Court notes that Plaintiff's Supplement (Doc. 52) seeks a further ninety day extension of Plaintiff's initial disclosure deadline and also seeks a ninety day extension of Plaintiff's expert testimony disclosure deadline. Because these new requests are improperly raised in a “Supplement, ” the requests are denied without prejudice.

         C. Plaintiff's “Motion for Amendment of Second Amended Complaint” (Doc. 47)

         On September 12, 2017, the Court issued an Order screening Plaintiff's two-count First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the “Petition to Return his Legal Boxe(s) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(g)” (Doc. 15). In the filing, Plaintiff states “I would like to supplement my First Amended Complaint with facts I've alleged in this Petition.” (Id. at 1). In a September 28, 2017 Order, the Court stated that to “the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend his First Amended Complaint, the request is denied without prejudice to allow the filing of a Second Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 17 at 2-3). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 15, 2017 (Doc. 29). On March 2, 2018, prior to the Court's issuance of an Order screening the Second Amended Complaint, the Clerk of Court docketed Plaintiff's “Motion for Amendment of Second Amended Complaint” (Doc. 47) and proposed Third Amended Complaint. The proposed Third Amended Complaint complies with LRCiv 15.1. Defendants have not responded to the Motion for Amendment (Doc. 47). See LRCiv 7.2(i). For good cause shown, the Court will grant the Motion (Doc. 47).[1] In accordance with the Court's continuing obligation to screen prisoners' complaints, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court will screen the Third Amended Complaint by separate Order.

         D. Plaintiff's “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference and Sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(A)(11)(A)” (Doc. 49)

         The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing concerning Plaintiff's request for a discovery conference (Doc. 49). For good cause shown, the Court will grant Plaintiff's request for a discovery conference. As to Plaintiff's request for sanctions that is contained in his Motion (Doc. 49), the request is denied without prejudice as it is improperly combined with Plaintiff's request for a discovery conference. The Court's Scheduling Order prohibits the parties from filing a document that contains more than one motion. (Doc. 31 at 4).

         II. CONCLUSION

         Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's “Motion for Clarification Whether Proposed Second Amended Complaint Supersedes Amended Petition to Return my Legal ...


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.