Sanchez v. The State of Nevada, ex rel. et al

Filing 40

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 12/22/2011 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Jennifer Cotter; Pla Counsel: Amadeo Sanchez, In Pro Per (telephonically); Def Counsel: Raelene Palmer (teleph onically); FTR #: 9:06:09 a.m. - 9:41:20 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. 28 Motion for Physical and Mental Examination is DENIED. Some discussion re 35 Objection. Please see attached minutes for details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENO, NEVADA
AMADEO SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-0273-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
DATED: DECEMBER 22, 2011

PRESENT: HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB , U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deputy Clerk: JENNIFER COTTER

Reporter: FTR: 9:06:09 a.m. - 9:41:20 a.m.

Counsel for Plaintiff(s): AMADEO SANCHEZ, In pro per
Counsel for Defendant(s): RAELENE PALMER
PROCEEDINGS: TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING / STATUS CONFERENCE
9:06 a.m. Court convenes.
The parties present argument as to their respective positions regarding the plaintiff’s Motion for
Physical and Mental Examination. (Docket #28.) The plaintiff states his request for the examination
would be for the apparent purpose of establishing the alleged “deliberate indifference” of the NDOC
medical personnel toward his medical condition. The court does not find that an appointment for
a medical expert or the ordering of a medical examination (particularly at defendants’ expense) is
appropriate under the circumstances. The court exercises its discretion and sets forth its findings
on the record.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Physical and Mental Examination
(Docket #28) is DENIED.
The Court also addresses Defendants’ Objection to U.S. Magistrate Judge’s Minute Order.
(Docket #35) The Court asked Deputy Attorney General Palmer to elaborate on her argument that
a scheduling order should not have been issued. The Court stated that since the defendants had
“appeared” in the action, under LR 16-1(b), the Court was under the impression that the issuance of
a Scheduling Order was required. Ms. Palmer made a vague reference to the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act which might be interpreted as delaying discovery in cases where prison officials have
filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court agreed that where “exhaustion” or “qualified
immunity” were asserted as the basis for a motion for summary judgment, postponement of
discovery might be appropriate. However, since defendants’ motion herein went beyond those two
grounds, there did not appear to be justification for postponement of the Scheduling Order.1
1
A significant portion of defendants’ motion for summary judgment is devoted to the issue of
whether defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to plaintiff’s serious medical condition. Docket #24,
pp. 8-18

Ms. Palmer notes there is a motion to stay discovery included in the defendants’ Objection. The
Court inquired why the defendants did not seek a protective order under Rule 26 instead of asking
for a “stay” for the first time in the Objection (Docket #35). Some discussion occurs as to the
appropriateness of requesting a stay in that manner and the posture of current propounded discovery.
The court stated that in view of defendants’ Objection, both the “stay” issue and the propriety of
issuing a scheduling order now seem to be matters for the Hon. Larry Hicks, District Judge. The
court took no action on these two questions as they have been submitted to Judge Hicks.
Plaintiff is advised that, although he represents he has submitted a motion to strike defendants’
motion for summary judgment (Docket #24), there is no response on file to defendants’ Motion at
the time of this hearing. Defendants’ counsel has also not received any “Motion to Strike.” Plaintiff
is adamant he submitted a “motion to strike” and does not believe he has confused what he may or
may not have filed in this case with another case he is prosecuting.
IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLERK SHALL SEND TO PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE
CURRENT DOCKET SHEET IN THIS CASE. The court will calendar a review of the docket
in the next week to see if any type of response is filed. If not, a further status conference may be
scheduled to address this issue. Plaintiff was also advised of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d) regarding any requests to delay decision on a motion for summary judgment pending
completion of discovery.
9:41 a.m. Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: /s/
Deputy Clerk