United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Order sets forth the Court's rulings on a number of
pending Motions (Docs. 207, 209, 212, 216, 217, 219, 221,
Plaintiff's “Motion to Stay Proceedings [until]
Arizona Department of Corrections (‘ADC') has fixed
Electronic Filing Program” (Doc. 207)
September 21, 2018 Motion, Plaintiff indicates that as a
result of technological issues with respect to the electronic
filing program, he did not receive a copy of the Court's
August 29, 2018 Order (Doc. 185). That Order set September
19, 2018 as the deadline for Plaintiff to file, in accordance
with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(A), a written
certification stating whether expert testimony is necessary
to prove the healthcare professional standard of care for his
medical malpractice claim in Count Three of the Third Amended
Complaint. The Court subsequently issued another Order
extending the deadline to October 5, 2018 after it became
aware that Plaintiff may not have timely received the
Court's August 29, 2018 Order. (Doc. 208).
Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 207) will be denied as moot.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Enforce Court Ruling
(‘dkt. 143')” (Doc. 209)
September 26, 2018 Motion, Plaintiff requests “that
USMS service packets be prepared for Osgood, Ducey, T. Taylor
and Marquis Software.” (Doc. 209 at 3). Pursuant to the
Court's Order (Doc. 143), Defendants filed under seal the
last known address for Defendant Osgood. (Doc. 153). A
service packet was prepared and forwarded to the U.S.
Marshals Service (“USMS”). On September 13, 2018,
service was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Osgood. (Doc.
198). Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 209) is denied as moot as
to Defendant Osgood. Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to
Ducey, T. Taylor, and Marquis Software as they are not
Defendants in this action.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Appoint Counsel
(‘Third Request')” (Doc. 212)
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's third Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Doc. 212). As previously explained to Plaintiff
(Doc. 10 at 12), there is no constitutional right to the
appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v.
U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir.
1991); Ivey v. Bd of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska,
673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court may appoint
counsel for indigent civil litigants only in exceptional
circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). On September 12, 2017 and May 10,
2018, the Court did not find that exceptional circumstances
existed in this case that warranted the appointment of
counsel. (Docs. 10, 76). Plaintiff's statements in his
September 21, 2018 Motion (Doc. 212) do not alter those
findings. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's
third Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 212).
Plaintiff's “Request to Disqualify Joseph E. Deylo
as Counsel of Record for Defendant Allen and Garcia”
(Doc. 216) and “Request to Disqualify the Law Office of
Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA” (Doc. 221)
October 2018, Plaintiff filed two documents captioned as
“Request to Disqualify Joseph E. Deylo as Counsel of
Record for Defendant Allen and Garcia” (Doc. 216) and
“Request to Disqualify the Law Office of Renaud Cook
Drury Mesaros PA” (Doc. 221). Plaintiff previously
filed a similar Request (Doc. 196) seeking to disqualify
Coleen P. Schoch as counsel of record for Defendants Hughes
and Jacobs, which the Court denied (Doc. 213).
Court explained in its prior Order (Doc. 213 at 2), motions
to disqualify counsel are “subjected to particularly
strict judicial scrutiny.” Optyl Eyewear Fashion
Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., 760 F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th
Cir. 1985) (quotations omitted). Disqualification is a
“drastic measure which courts should hesitate to impose
except when absolutely necessary.” Schiessle v.
Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 1983). To be
justified, a motion to disqualify must be based on present
concerns and not concerns which are merely anticipatory and
speculative. In regarding Coordinated Pretrial
Proceedings, etc., 658 F.2d 1355, 1361 (9th Cir. 1981).
Court does not find good cause to disqualify Joseph E. Deylo
and Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA as counsel of record.
Plaintiff's Requests (Docs. 216, 221) will be denied.
Defendants Allen and Garcia's “Motion to Extend
Discovery Deadline and Dispositive Motion Deadline”
(Doc. 217) and Plaintiff's “Motion for Extention of
Time to Complete Discovery on All ...