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.

Green v. Corizon Health Services

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 8, 2019

Alfred Green, Plaintiff,
v.
Corizon Health Services, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Honorable Rosemary Marquez, United States District Judge.

         Pending 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. 72).

         I. Background

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff 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.)

         II. Motions for Subpoenas

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff's 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” (Doc. 64).

         With 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 testimony.

         With 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.

         III. Motion for Initial Discovery Waiver

         In his “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. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv).

         The 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.

         IV. Application to ...


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.