United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Rosemary Marquez, United States District Judge.
before the Court are Plaintiff's “Motion for Leave
of Court to Subpoena Defendants” (Doc. 64);
“Motion for Subpoenas” (Doc. 65); “Motion
[for] Initial Discovery Waiver” (Doc. 66);
“Motion to  Amend Complaint” (Doc. 67);
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 68);
“Motion to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint” (Doc.
69); and “Motion [for] Interrogatories” (Doc.
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
February 9, 2018. (Doc. 1.) On June 26, 2018, the Court
dismissed the initial Complaint with leave to file a First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and granted
Plaintiff's second Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. (Doc. 10.) The Court denied a third Application to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis as moot on July 24, 2018. (Doc.
12.) Plaintiff filed a FAC on August 6, 2018. (Doc. 14.) The
Court dismissed the FAC on September 26, 2018, with leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Doc.
17.) Plaintiff filed a SAC (“Complaint”) on
October 29, 2018. (Doc. 22.) The Complaint alleges violations
of Plaintiff's First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights connected to the allegedly deficient medical
treatment he received following an off-site transportation
incident on February 2, 2017. (Doc. 14 at 4; Doc. 28.) On
December 20, 2018, the Court ordered Defendant Corizon to
answer Count One of the Complaint as to Plaintiff's
Eighth Amendment claim and dismissed the remaining defendants
and claims. (Doc. 28 at 8-11.) Defendant filed its answer on
February 28, 2019. (Doc. 39.) Pursuant to the Court's
April 5, 2019 Scheduling Order, discovery closed on October
17, 2019. (Doc. 41 at 2-3.) Dispositive motions are due on
November 18, 2019. (Doc. 41 at 4.)
filed two Motions for Subpoenas on September 17, 2019. (Docs.
61, 62.) The Court denied these motions on October 2, 2019
for failure to comply with the procedural requirements set
forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 and Gen. Ord. 18-19. (Doc. 62.)
Motions for Subpoenas
has filed two Motions requesting the Court to issue
subpoenas. (Docs. 64, 65.) The Court ruled on Plaintiff's
previous Motions for Subpoenas (Docs. 60, 61) on October 2,
2019 (Doc. 62).
pending motions request the Court to issue subpoenas on
Plaintiff's behalf to eight individuals, seven of whom
work as medical providers for Corizon at ASPC-Tucson,
Cimarron Unit and one of whom is an inmate at ASPC-Tucson,
Cimarron Unit. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff states that “each
individual. . . has pertinent information that is crucial to
Plaintiff's case and should be made available.”
(Id.) He additionally states, with respect to the
inmate he wishes to subpoena, that he “was assisted by
[inmates who] would carry heavy tables that I had to stand on
or they would [illegible] mask of certain section for
painting” (Doc. 65) and that “inmates witness[ed]
Plaintiff's daily movements after [the] accident”
respect to Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas for the
seven medical professionals, Plaintiff fails to “state
with particularity the reasons for seeking the testimony and
documents” as required by General Order 18-19. Even if,
as Plaintiff claims, these individuals have “pertinent
information that is crucial to Plaintiff's case, ”
this is not a sufficiently specific reason for seeking their
respect to Plaintiff's request to subpoena inmate
“Rudolph Turnner, ” an inmate at ASPC-Tucson,
Cimarron Unit, although Plaintiff has stated with
particularity the reasons for seeking Mr. Turnner's
testimony and/or documents, he has not attached a copy of the
proposed subpoena to his motion as required by General Order
18-19. Because Plaintiff has not complied with the procedural
requirements for requesting the Court to issue subpoenas, his
Motions for Subpoenas will be denied.
Motion for Initial Discovery Waiver
“Motion [for] Initial Discovery Waiver, ”
Plaintiff “requests waiver exemption in accordance to
disclosed protection.” (Doc. 66.) Plaintiff cites
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, which provides that actions “brought
without an attorney by a person in the custody of the United
States, a state, or a state subdivision” are exempt
from initial disclosure requirements. Fed.R.Civ.P.
relief or action that Plaintiff seeks from the Court is
unclear. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order exempting
this action from initial disclosure requirements, the
Court's April 5, 2019 Scheduling Order already noted that
this case is exempted from initial disclosure requirements
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 41.) Therefore,
this Motion will be denied as moot.
Application to ...