Adamson v. Amati et al
Filing
53
ORDER that the following motions are denied: 45 Motion for Stay of Proceedings Indefinitely; 46 Motion that the City Defendant make Funds Available to Plaintiff; 47 Motion for Subpoena of Video and Related records; 48 Motion Scheduling Settlement Conference; and 49 Motion for Determination of Plaintiff's Competency. It is further ordered that Plaintiff has up to and including August 28, 2015 to respond to the two pending motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 36 , 38 ). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/28/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
GREGORY K. ADAMSON,
Case No. 2:11-cv-00781-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,
10
v.
ORDER
11
AMATI, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
15
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his application to proceed in forma pauperis
16
(“IFP”) on May 13, 2011. (Dkt. no. 1.) It took over three years, and after numerous
17
extension requests and motion for reconsideration of denial of his IFP application, before
18
Plaintiff paid the filing fees. (Dkt. no. 18.) Following service of process, Defendant Brian
19
Smith filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process (dkt. no. 36) and certain
20
of the remaining defendants moved for partial dismissal (dkt. no. 38).1 In response,
21
Plaintiff filed a consolidated motion (“Motion”) seeking the following reliefs: (1) stay of
22
proceedings indefinitely (dkt. no. 45); (2) the City Defendant to make funds available to
23
Plaintiff (dkt. no. 46); (3) court issuance of subpoena to compel production of video and
24
related records (dkt. no. 47); (4) scheduling of settlement conference (dkt. no. 48); and
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant City of Las Vegas (“the City Defendant”) has filed its Answer to Civil
Rights Complaint. (Dkt. no. 43.) Plaintiff indicates that he assumed he has been given an
extension to file a reply. (Dkt. no. 45 at 7.) No extension has been granted. More
importantly, the procedural rules do not provide for a response or reply to be filed in
response to a defendant’s answer to a complaint.
1
(5) determination of Plaintiff’s competency (dkt. no. 49).2 Defendants have filed a
2
response (dkt. no. 50) and Plaintiff has filed a reply (dkt. no. 52).
3
Plaintiff’s Motion is premised primarily on Plaintiff’s claim that he is too
4
incompetent to proceed and needs financial assistance with treatment. Plaintiff alleges
5
that his incompetency is a result of injuries inflicted by Defendants. (Dkt. no. 45 at 1.)
6
A party proceeding pro se in a civil lawsuit is entitled to a competency
7
determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented. Allen v.
8
Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, Plaintiff has not presented
9
evidence, let alone substantial evidence, of incompetence, to support his request for the
10
Court to determine his competency to warrant staying this case for an indefinite period or
11
to appoint a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff contends he suffered “head and body pain day
12
and night and sleep has been compromised leading to a severe condition cognitively
13
that leaves the plaintiff unable to adequately comprehend the documents” filed in this
14
case. (Dkt. no. 45 at 1.) Plaintiff claims without any support that he suffered from:
15
“PTSD, ADHD, Brain Disorder, memory loss, dyslexia, depression, confusion and sleep
16
deprivation and other symptoms.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff claims the medical record he has,
17
and would file if the Court so requests, does not “explain the total health care picture that
18
a future specialist will write.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff points to a medical report he allegedly
19
filed in 2010 where a neuropsychologist “clearly” showed the “mental cognitive
20
dysfunction” he suffered in 2010. (Id.) Without any supporting evidence, the Court has
21
no basis to determine Plaintiff’s competency or to make further inquiry as to his
22
competency.3
23
As to Plaintiff’s request for funds from the City Defendant, Plaintiff is not legally
24
entitled to advanced funds from the City Defendant. Plaintiff may be able to recover as
25
2
26
27
28
These motions are identical, but were filed as separate motions pursuant to
Special Order No. 109, Sect. F(III)(4). For ease of reference, this Order cites to the first
of these motions (dkt. no. 45).
3
Indeed, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is able to present his arguments to the
Court in a coherent manner.
2
1
damages expenses relating to treatment of injuries allegedly caused by Defendants if he
2
prevails at the conclusion of the lawsuit. However, the relief he seeks against the City
3
Defendant — funds to pay for treatment and travel expenses while this action is pending
4
— is not available.
5
Plaintiff requests that the Court direct the City Defendant to produce a video of his
6
booking and related records. However, Plaintiff needs to proceed through normal
7
discovery and, in the event a dispute arose as to these records, Plaintiff may then seek
8
Court intervention through a motion to compel production.
9
Plaintiff further requests that the Court schedule a settlement conference.
10
Defendants oppose, arguing that a settlement conference before commencement of
11
discovery is premature. In light of Defendants’ response, the Court declines to schedule
12
a settlement conference at this time.
13
It is therefore ordered that the following motions are denied: (1) stay of
14
proceedings indefinitely (dkt. no. 45); (2) the City Defendant to make funds available to
15
Plaintiff (dkt. no. 46); (3) subpoena of video and related records (dkt. no. 47); (4)
16
scheduling of settlement conference (dkt. no. 48); and (5) determination of Plaintiff’s
17
competency (dkt. no. 49). It is further ordered that Plaintiff has up to and including
18
August 28, 2015 to respond to the two pending motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 36, 38).
19
This new deadline gives Plaintiff months of additional time. The Court will therefore not
20
grant any further request for extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to these two
21
motions.
22
DATED THIS 28th day of July 2015.
23
24
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?