Gause #162805 v. Indy et al
| Richard LeGrand Gause |
| Unknown Indy, Unknown Party, Unknown Utterbeck and Unknown East |
| 2:2015cv02514 |
| December 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| John J Tuchi |
| Eileen S Willett |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
127
ORDER striking Plaintiff's 123 "Discovery Production." FURTHER ORDERED denying 124 "Motion Ordering Production." FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's 125 "Motion Requesting that Discovery deadline be exten ded past October 14th 2016." Discovery due by 10/28/2016. Dispositive motions due by 12/28/2016. The Court's denial of Plaintiff's 88 "Motion Requesting Leave to make 2nd Amendment to complaint" is affirmed. (Doc. 122 at 8). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 9/30/2016. (ATD)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER denying 88 Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting Leave to make 2nd Amendment to complaint." ORDERED granting Defendants Ende and Rojas' "Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend (Doc. 88 )" (Doc. 118 ). The sur-reply lodged (Doc. 118-1 at 2-9) is deemed filed and has been considered. ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting to be appointed counsel" (Doc. 106 ). ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court t o strike Plaintiff's "Addittional [sic] Discovery Disclosure" (Doc. 108 ). ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff's "Notice of Service of Complaint filed on Defendant Ende with Arizona Board of Nursing.. .." (Doc. 111 ). ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting Courts Rule in my favor due to Defendants Refusing to comply with repeated Court Orders" (Doc. 115 ). If Plaintiff intended to file a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Plaintiff must timely re-file his Motion in compliance with the procedural requirements. Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket to remove the indication that Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. [1 15]) is a motion for summary judgment. ORDERED that by October 7, 2016, Defendants Ende and Rojas shall respond to Plaintiff's September 20, 2016 filing (Doc. 120 ). See document for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 9/28/16.(EJA)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff's discovery motions filed at Docs. 36 , 44 , 56 , 70 , and 89 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's discovery requests filed at Docs. 26 , 45 , 66 , 69 , 90 , and 92 and discover y responses filed at Docs. 20 and 46 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's "Motion to have Defendants provide Marshalls [sic] [with] Home Address of Defendant Dentist Doe" (Doc. 35 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by Septembe r 14, 2016, counsel for Defendant Utterbeck shall file under seal the last known address for Defendant Dentist Doe, identified by Plaintiff as Laura Hale. Upon receipt of the address for Defendant Hale, the Clerk of Court shall complete and forwa rd to the USMS a service packet for Defendant Hale. Service shall be made within sixty days of the date of this order at Government expense by the United States Marshal or his authorized representative in accordance with the Court's January 21, 2016 Order (Doc. [9)]. Failure to accomplish service within this time period may result in dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Hale for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Motion Substituting Defendant Laura Hale cause she can not be found to be served" (Doc. 101 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Amended Motion to Substitute Deceased Defendant Aaron East" (Doc. 67 ). IT IS FURT HER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's duplicative "Amended Motion to Substitute Deceased Defendant Aaron East" (Doc. 68 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's "Addendum to First Amended Complaint" (Doc. 64 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by September 6, 2016, Defendant Utterbeck shall respond to Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting leave to make 2nd Amendment to Complaint" (Doc. 88 ). Plaintiff may file a reply within seven days after service of th e response. Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants Ende and Rojas' Response (Doc. 104 ) no later than September 12, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's duplicative "Motion for Access to Typewriter (Doc. 50 ). The fu lly briefed Motion (Doc. 49 ) is deemed a request for injunctive relief and is referred to the District Judge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to amend the docket to reflect that Plaintiff's "Qualified Disability for M otion for a Typewriter" (Doc. 57 ) is a reply to Defendants' Response (Doc. 51 ) to Plaintiff's "Motion for Access to Typewriter" (Doc. 49 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Reminder to Courts, askin g to rule on older motions yet to be ruled on" (Doc. 100 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Request to Strike Defendants response to Substitute Deceased Defendant East and responses to Addendum" (Doc. 102 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's "Notices" (Docs. 71 - 74 , 78 , 80 , 91 , 95 , and 99 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file duplicative motions in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED referring Plaintiff's fully briefed "Emergency Injunction" (Doc. 58 ) to the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 9/1/16. (LAD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
