Rodriguez # 140309 v. Ryan et al
Filing
45
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation of th eMagistrate Judge, (Doc. 27 ), is ACCEPTED, the Report and Recommendation lodged at (Doc. 22 ) is denied as moot, and Plaintiff's motion to supplement is GRANTED. In addi tion, Plaintiff's motions for court intervention, (Docs. 29 , 30 ), are DENIED. Defendants must answer Plaintiff's claims in the FAC as set forth in this Order. Counts III, VI, VII, and VIII of the FAC are dismissed. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 3/21/16. (LAD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Frankie Lee Rodriguez,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-15-01766-PHX-DLR
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (Doc. 22)
17
and Amended Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine, (Doc. 2),
18
regarding statutory screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (Doc.
19
14), and Motion to Supplement, (Doc. 15). Plaintiff has also filed two motions for court
20
intervention, (Docs. 29, 30), requesting supplies and documents from Defendants.
21
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is currently incarcerated.
22
recommends that the Court order Defendant Ryan to answer Counts I and II of the FAC;
23
Defendants Ryan and Barrios answer Count IV of the FAC; Defendants Ryan, Fizer, and
24
Miser answer Count V of the FAC; and that Defendants Moody and Barrios answer
25
Count IX of the FAC. (Doc. 27 at 9-10.) It is recommended that the remaining counts of
26
the FAC, Counts III, VI, VII, and VIII, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 6,
27
8.) It is further recommended that the court grant Plaintiff’s motion to supplement. (Id.
28
at 10.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file
The R&R
1
objections to the R&R. (Id. at 10 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).) Plaintiff timely filed
2
objections on February 16, 2016. (Doc. 34.)
3
The Court has considered the objections and has reviewed the R&R de novo. See
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo
5
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
6
objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations,
7
accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), and overrules
8
Plaintiff’s objections.
9
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
10
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may
the magistrate”).
11
In addition, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions for court intervention. Plaintiff
12
requests that the Court order Defendants to provide him with a full copy of two notice of
13
electronic filings (NEFs) for two documents on the Court’s docket, Docs. 23 and 24.
14
Plaintiff claims he has only received the first page. Plaintiff also requests that the Court
15
order Defendants to provide him with paper, pencils, envelopes, and stamps. Both
16
motions are denied.
17
Defendants submitted an affidavit from the warden of Plaintiff’s facility attesting
18
to the fact that the ADOC follows a policy written and distributed by the Court, which
19
does not require providing prisoners with a full printout of the NEFs if they are filed by
20
the prisoner. (Doc. 40-1, ¶ 7.) Full printouts are required for documents filed by defense
21
counsel. (Id., ¶ 8.) The NEFs requested by Plaintiff are documents he prepared and filed,
22
and thus need not be provided by Defendants. In addition, Defendants provided an
23
affidavit from the prison librarian attesting that Plaintiff’s supply needs have been met.
24
(Doc. 37-1.) Plaintiff does not dispute the affidavit, and thus the motion is denied as
25
moot.
26
IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation of the
27
Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 27), is ACCEPTED, the Report and Recommendation lodged at
28
(Doc. 22) is denied as moot, and Plaintiff’s motion to supplement is GRANTED. In
-2-
1
addition, Plaintiff’s motions for court intervention, (Docs. 29, 30), are DENIED.
2
Defendants must answer Plaintiff’s claims in the FAC as set forth in this Order. Counts
3
III, VI, VII, and VIII of the FAC are dismissed.
4
Dated this 21st day of March, 2016.
5
6
7
8
9
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
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?