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.

Gause v. Corizon Health Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

July 8, 2019

Richard LeGrand Gause, Plaintiff,
v.
Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

          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 ...


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.