Dutcher #067784 v. Ryan

Filing 59

ORDER denying 51 Plaintiff's "Motion for Assistance of the Court". The Clerk of Court shall send to Plaintiff one blank subpoena duces tecum. The time for service of process of Defendant Roberts is extended an additional 60 days from the date of filing of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 9/28/16. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena) (DXD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert William Dutcher, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-15-01079-PHX-ROS (ESW) Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Robert William Dutcher, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman (ASPC-Eyman) in Florence, Arizona, filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 2, 2016, alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 40). The Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered Defendants Corizon, Stowe, Shields, and Roberts to answer Counts One through Five (Doc. 42 at 10). Defendants Corizon Health, Inc., (“Corizon”) Stowe, and Shields have answered (Docs. 48, 53). Service was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Roberts (Doc. 47). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s fully briefed “Motion for the Assistance of the Court” (Doc. 51). The Court sets forth its ruling below. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Corizon and Charles L. Ryan to provide “the name, last known addresses and loctation [sic] to the Court ‘under seal’ so 1 that service of Defendant Corizon Regional Medical Director, from before, during and 2 after May 14, 2013 . . . may be effected as Ordered, (Doc. #42) without violating 3 A.D.O.C. and Corizon Health, Inc., security concerns.” (Doc. 51 at 2). In its Reponse, 4 Defendant Corizon states that it “has no record of a Dr. Roberts having worked for 5 Corizon in Arizona.” (Doc. 52 at 1). Neither counsel for Corizon nor Corizon has 6 knowledge of Dr. Roberts and his last known address. Therefore, Defendant Corizon 7 urges the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 8 In his Reply, Plaintiff attaches an Arizona Department of Corrections Health 9 Services Communique dated May 14, 2013 signed by “Roberts” which states: “In regard 10 to your outside consult to see cataract/glaucoma specialist, this request has been denied at 11 this time by Corizon Regional Medical Director. . . .” 12 note indicates that Roberts is a doctor with Corizon or that Roberts is Corizon’s Regional 13 Medical Director. In addition, the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) is not a 14 party in this case. (Doc. 56 at 3). Nothing in the 15 Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs the issuance of a subpoena. Plaintiff has failed 16 to comply with the requirements of Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., in seeking information from 17 non-party ADOC. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with one 18 subpoena duces tecum so that Plaintiff may obtain the information he seeks through the 19 proper use of a subpoena duces tecum. As to Defendant Corizon, Plaintiff must use the 20 discovery tools available to him through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 21 of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to obtain the name of the 22 Corizon Regional Medical Director during the time frame Plaintiff describes. The Court 23 does not conduct discovery for litigants. See United States v. Merrill, 746 F. 2d 458, 465 24 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1165, (1985) (finding that even pro se litigants 25 must follow the same rules of procedure and evidence that govern litigants represented by 26 counsel); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks 27 the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”). The Court will extend 28 time for service of process on Defendant Roberts for an additional sixty (60) days from -2- 1 the date of filing of this order to allow the Plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding the 2 address of Defendant Roberts. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons set forth herein, 5 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion for Assistance of the Court” (Doc. 6 51). 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court send to Plaintiff one blank 8 subpoena duces tecum for the limited purpose of conducting discovery on ADOC 9 regarding the address and name of Defendant Roberts. Plaintiff shall fill out the 10 subpoena duces tecum and mail it back to the Clerk of Court for service of process 11 through the United States Marshal (“USMS”). The address of Defendant Roberts shall be 12 filed under seal and provided to the USMS for service of process. 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending time for service of process of Defendant Roberts an additional sixty (60) days from the date of filing of this order. Dated this 28th day of September, 2016. 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?