United States District Court, D. Arizona
DOMINIC U. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.)
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.)
January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
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.)
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).
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.
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).
December 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge Boyle issued an order
denying those motions in significant part. (Doc. 48.)
January 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed written objections to Judge
Boyle's December 21, 2018 order. (Doc. 61.)
February 6, 2019, the Court issued an order overruling ...