Vanzant v. Wilcox et al

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED THAT: (1) The earlier referral order in this case, Dkt. 47 , 8, is WITHDRAWN. (2) Plaintiff's pending motions at Dkts. 147 , 148 , and 149 are DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BRAD VANZANT,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00118-BLW

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
DAVE WILCOX; SGT. CRAIG;
OFFICER EGERMAN; CPL. COLE;
OFFICER BALL; EFFIE REED;
NURSE VERONICA, LT.
GREENLAND; LT. CLARK;
CORIZON, INC.; IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
and OFFICER LARSEN,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Brad Vanzant: (1) a Motion
for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 147); (2) a Motion “for all pertain information
regarding Rule 702 Motions and Serious Daubert Issues” (Dkt. 148); and (3) a Motion for
Job Description of LPN’s Corizon Employees (Dkt. 149). For the reasons explained
below, the Court will deny these motions.
DISCUSSION
1. The Referral Order
Preliminarily, the Court will withdraw the order referring all matters in this case to
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

a United States Magistrate Judge. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. 47, ¶ 8. This case was
originally assigned to District Judge Edward J. Lodge. Judge Lodge referred all matters
in this case to a magistrate judge. See id. The case was later reassigned to the undersigned
judge, who does not routinely refer matters to magistrate judges. Accordingly, in keeping
with its regular practice, the Court will withdraw the earlier referral order.
2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
The Court previously denied plaintiff’s request to appoint counsel. See Aug. 5,
2015 Initial Review Order. Plaintiff has not explained why this decision should be
reconsidered, and, moreover, the Court is not convinced that plaintiff requires the
assistance of counsel to prosecute this straightforward civil case. The Court will deny the
motion for appointment of counsel for the same reasons articulated in the earlier order.
See id.
3. Motion Regarding Rule 702 Motions and Daubert Issues.
In its earlier trial-setting order, the Court ordered the parties to notify it if the case
involved any “serious Daubert issues.” See Nov. 7, 2018 Amended Trial-Setting Order,
¶ 3. Neither party has indicated that there are any such issues. So there is nothing to
decide on this issue. Further, it is not the Court’s function to send information to the
parties regarding Daubert issues; the parties must identify those issues. The Court will
therefore deny plaintiff’s request that the “to send [him] all information pertaining to and
regarding Rule 702 motions & involving serious Daubert issues, . . . .” Dkt. 148, at 1.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

4. Motion Regarding Job Descriptions
In his third motion, plaintiff asks the Court to “have Corizon turn over all job
description of their LP.N’s that work at IDOC . . . .” Dkt. 149, at 1. The Court will deny
this request. The discovery deadline has long since passed, and plaintiff does not make
any effort to explain why that deadline should be extended. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The earlier referral order in this case, Dkt. 47, ¶ 8, is WITHDRAWN.
(2) Plaintiff’s pending motions at Dkts. 147, 148, and 149 are DENIED.

DATED: February 6, 2019
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3