Jones # 202414 v. Forbs et al

Filing 27

ORDER, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Compel; denying wihtout prejudice Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Forms; denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Forms. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/4/12.(REW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Theodore Jacob Jones, 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 CO II Forbs, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA) ORDER 15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, doc.23, Plaintiff’s 16 Motion to Request Forms (Multiple), doc. 24, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Forms, doc. 17 25. All three documents were filed on August 1, 2012. 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff filed his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint on March 1, 2012, against 20 Defendant Forbs, Sanchez, Scott, Curron and Charles Ryan. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff alleged three 21 causes of action under the Eighth Amendment. The Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis 22 status, but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7) Thereafter, Plaintiff 23 filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2012, against COII Forbs and COII Sanchez. (Doc. 24 9) The Court statutorily screened the First Amended Complaint and ordered Defendants 25 Forbs and Sanchez answer the amended complaint. (Doc. 11) On July 10, 2012, Plaintiff 26 moved the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) to furnish the address of A. 27 Sanchez. (Doc. 13) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, but ordered Plaintiff be provided 28 1 with five subpoenas in blank and extended to September 12, 2012, the time for Plaintiff to 2 discover the service information for Defendant Sanchez. That date has not yet passed. 3 II. Pending Motions 4 Plaintiff has three motions currently pending before the Court. Plaintiff’s first motion, 5 doc. 23, is a motion to compel, requesting the Court to order the ADOC to provide Plaintiff 6 with the names and addresses of all three corrections officers involved in the alleged incident 7 in order to assist Plaintiff in serving the individuals. First, Plaintiff’s First Amended 8 Complaint names only two defendants, i.e. Forbs and Sanchez. The Court does not know 9 who the third defendant is to whom Plaintiff is referring. Second, Plaintiff has already been 10 provided five subpoenas in blank to facilitate his attempt to obtain the proper address for 11 Defendant Sanchez. He was given until September 12, 2012 to obtain the proper address of 12 Defendant Sanchez. The Court’s docket reflects that Defendant Sanchez was served on 13 August 22, 2012, and therefore the issue is moot with respect to Defendant Sanchez. With 14 respect to Defendant Forbs, Plaintiff should have sufficient subpoena ability to obtain 15 information as to his address. If, however, Plaintiff provides the Court with copies of the five 16 subpoenas used to determine Defendant Sanchez’ address, the Court will provide Plaintiff 17 with additional subpoenas to obtain information about Defendant Forbs. Therefore, the Court 18 will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, doc. 23, without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff 19 seeks to confirm the identities of the Defendants involved in the alleged incident, that 20 information can be determined through the discovery process once service is completed. 21 Plaintiff’s second pending motion is a Motion to Request Forms (multiple), doc. 24. 22 In this request, Plaintiff asks the Court to provide him with a Request for Waiver of Service 23 of Summons, a Notice of Lawsuit form and a Request for a Summons, Complaint and Order. 24 (Doc. 24 at 1) On June 22, 2012, the Court ordered that the Clerk of Court send Plaintiff the 25 necessary service packet, which would include these documents. (Doc. 11) Plaintiff has not 26 stated that he has not received these documents, or if he did, why he needs an additional set. 27 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Forms (multiple), doc. 24, without 28 prejudice. -2- 1 Plaintiff’s third pending motion is another Motion to Request Forms, doc. 25. In this 2 motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to provide him with three separate service process receipt 3 and return forms. Plaintiff provides no explanation why he needs these forms. In addition, 4 in the Court’s June 22, 2012 Order, the Clerk of the Court was directed to provide Plaintiff 5 with the appropriate service packet. (Doc. 11) Plaintiff has not stated that he did not receive 6 this service packet or that if he did, why he needs an additional one. The Court will deny 7 Motion to Request Forms, doc. 25, without prejudice. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, doc. 23, is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Forms (multiple), doc. 24, is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Forms, doc. 25, is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 4th day of September, 2012. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?