United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
EILEEN
S. WILLETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On
February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Richard LeGrand Gause, who is
confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in
Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered
Defendants Corizon and Fisk to answer the Complaint (Doc. 6
at 12). Defendant Fisk has not been served. Defendant Corizon
filed an Answer on May 21, 2019 (Doc. 13).
The
following discussion addresses numerous documents filed by
Plaintiff (Docs. 15-20, 22, 23).
I.
DISCUSSION
A.
“Notice to Courts of Defendants Lawyers not Contacting
with address to communicate with concerning case.”
(Doc. 15)
“A
district court has discretion to adopt local rules. . . .
Those rules have ‘the force of law.'”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010)
(citation omitted). Hence, both the parties and the Court are
bound by the local rules. LRCiv. 83.3(c) (1) (“Anyone
appearing before the court is bound by these Local
Rules.”); Professional Programs Group v. Department
of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994). A
district court's departure from its local rules is
justified only if the effect is “so slight and
unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook
[it].” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
All
requests for Court action of any kind must be filed in the
form of a motion, not in the form of a notice. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A request for a court order
must be made by motion.”). The Court may strike a
submission by a party on the ground that it is not authorized
by statute, rule, or court order. See LRCiv 7.2(m).
In his
“Notice to Courts of Defendants Lawyers not Contacting
with address to communicate with concerning case” (Doc.
15), Plaintiff asks the Court for defense counsels'
contact information. Defense counsels' address, phone
number, and email information are listed on Defendant
Corizon's Answer (Doc. 13 at 1). In the event Plaintiff
did not receive a copy of Defendant Corizon's Answer, the
Court will order Defendant Corizon to send Plaintiff a copy
of the Answer at Plaintiff's current address of record.
Plaintiff's request should have been filed in the form of
a motion in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1) and LRCiv
7.2. LRCiv 7.1(b)(2) further requires in civil cases when a
party requests specific relief, as Plaintiff does here, that
the party also lodge a separate proposed order with the Clerk
of Court. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure as well as the Rules of Practice of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. His
“Notice” is not authorized under statute, rule,
or court order. Therefore, the Court will strike
“Notice to Courts of Defendants Lawyers not Contacting
with address to communicate with concerning case” (Doc.
15) pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m).
B.
“Attached Correspondence to Corizons Counsel for
Defendant [sic] Corizon” (Doc. 16)
Plaintiff
has filed a document that attaches a letter to defense
counsel. No. request is made of the Court in this document.
Plaintiff's “Attached Correspondence” will be
stricken as an unauthorized filing pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m).
See also Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627
F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established
that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control
their docket.'”) (citations omitted).
C.
Plaintiff's “Addendum to Count I Adding Director
Chuck Ryan and Deputy Warden Pitz at Buckly Unit” (Doc.
17)
Plaintiff
seeks to add two defendants to Count One of the Complaint
(Doc. 1). The Court construes Plaintiff's “Addendum
to Count I Adding Director Chuck Ryan and Deputy Warden Pitz
at Buckly Unit” (Doc. 17) as an attempt to file an
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2). A party moving to amend a complaint must lodge a
proposed amended complaint “that indicates in what
respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by
bracketing or striking through the text that was deleted and
underlining the text that was added.” LRCiv 15.1(a).
Plaintiff has not complied with Local Rule of Civil Procedure
15.1(a). The Court will strike Plaintiff's
“Addendum to Count I Adding Director Chuck Ryan and
Deputy Warden Pitz at Buckly Unit” (Doc. 17) without
prejudice to allow the timely filing of a Motion to Amend the
Complaint and proposed First Amended Complaint that complies
with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil
Procedure.[1]
D.
Plaintiff's Discovery Requests (Docs. 18-20) and
Discovery Disclosure (Doc. 22)
On May
29, 2019, Plaintiff filed three documents containing
discovery requests. (Docs. 18-20). On June 13, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a “First Discovery Disclosure to
Corizon” (Doc. 22). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5(d)(1) states that “disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or
(2) and the following discovery requests and responses must
not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the
court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests
for documents or tangible things or to permit entry onto
land, and requests for admission.” LRCiv 5.2 provides
that “[a] ‘Notice of Service' of the
disclosures ...