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.

Withers v. Beecken Petty O'keefe

United States District Court, D. Arizona

March 13, 2019

Michael V Withers, Plaintiff,
v.
Beecken Petty O'Keefe & Company, et al., Defendants. v.

          ORDER

          DOMINIC U. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On February 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge Boyle issue an order (“the Order”) resolving five categories of non-dispositive motions that had been filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 74.) Specifically, Judge Boyle (1) denied Plaintiff's motions for leave to conduct depositions (Docs. 55, 56, and 58), (2) denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to issue a subpoena duces tecum (Doc. 59), (3) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions to modify the scheduling order (Docs. 57, 73), (4) granted Plaintiff's motion for more time to serve a particular defendant (Doc. 60), and (5) granted Plaintiff's motion to take “judicial notice” of a court order issued in Parsons v. Ryan and several associated documents (Docs. 62, 68). Afterward, Plaintiff filed written objections to the Order. (Doc. 78.) As explained below, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections.

         I. Background

         On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.)

         On January 16, 2018, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and giving Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 5.)

         On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 6.)

         On April 23, 2018, the Court issued a screening order in which it dismissed Counts 2-6 of the first amended complaint but concluded that “Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Corizon and Grafton-Burns in Count One, and those Defendants will be required to answer.” (Doc. 7 at 3-7.)

         Since then, Plaintiff has filed an array of unmeritorious motions. In an order issued on June 4, 2018 (see Doc. 15), the Court denied (1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 8), (2) Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 8), and (3) Plaintiff's motion to extend time (Doc. 14).

         Next, in an order issued on October 30, 2018 (see Doc. 37), the Court denied (1) Plaintiff's first motion to compel (Doc. 24), (2) Plaintiff's second motion to compel (Doc. 30), (3) Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 32), and (4) Plaintiff's motion to extend dates (Doc. 36).

         Following the issuance of this order, Plaintiff filed the following motions: (1) a renewed motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 39), (2) a motion for assistance (Doc. 40), and (3) a third motion to compel (Doc. 41).

         On December 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge Boyle issued an order denying those motions in significant part. (Doc. 48.)

         On January 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed written objections to Judge Boyle's December 21, 2018 order. (Doc. 61.)

         On February 6, 2019, the Court issued an order overruling ...


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.