Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert A. Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Glendale Police Department et, al., 

Defendants.

CV 11-2260-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court are Robert A. Garcia’s (the “Plaintiff’s”) (1) Motion to 

Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 80), (2) Motion for Public Interest Awareness (Doc. 81), (3) 

Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 82), (4) Motion to Correct Clerical Errors (Doc. 83), (5) 

Motion to File Criminal Charges; and (6) Motion to File Second Amended Complaint. 

Robert Solomon (the “Defendant”) filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 85) and a Motion to Strike (Doc. 84) Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Public Interest Awareness. 

 First, after Defendant’s attorney filed a Notice of Association on October 18, 

2013, Plaintiff moved to disqualify counsel. (Docs. 76, 80). Plaintiff does not cite any 

law or state any facts supporting grounds for relief. Defendant’s counsel complied with 

the Local Rule 83.3 to associate, and as a result, there is no reason to disqualify counsel. 

See LRCiv 83.3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue seems to allege that the Judge is in 

some way conflicted because certain defendants were dismissed from the case. (Doc. 82 

at 2–3). However, the allegations are unfounded based on the legitimate legal reasons for 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 92 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

dismissing certain claims and defendants. (Doc. 17). Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Amend is denied because it is untimely and would prejudice Defendant at this late stage 

of the case. See Western Shoshone Nat. Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 

1991). Moreover, procedurally it fails to comply with LRCiv. 15.1, and is alternatively 

denied for this reason. 

 Plaintiff’s remaining Motions are void of legal bases to explain or justify 

Plaintiff’s claimed entitlement to relief. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motions do not warrant relief, 

and the Motions are denied. Based on these denials, the Defendant’s Motions to Strike 

(Docs. 84, 85) are moot. 

 The parties are admonished to continue preparing a joint Proposed Final Pretrial 

Order consistent with this Court’s order at Doc. 69. The Court again reminds Plaintiff of 

the warning to comply with the Court’s Order: 

Plaintiff is cautioned that if defense counsel files a motion to 

dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and/or failure 

to prosecute, with an accompanying affidavit indicating that 

Plaintiff will not meet and confer, or will not participate in 

the preparation of the joint final pretrial order, THE COURT 

WILL DISMISS THIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER 

WARNINGS OR EXTENSIONS. 

(Doc. 77 at 3). 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 80) is 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Public Interest 

Awareness (Doc. 81) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 

82) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Clerical Errors 

(Doc. 83) is denied. 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 92 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Criminal Charges (Doc. 

90) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File 2nd Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 91) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 85) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 84) 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Public Interest Awareness is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 25th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 92 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 3