Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01946/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01946-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

Michael R. Robinson, MSW

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Centene Corporation/Nursewise; Shannon

M. Anderson, Human Resources Manager,

John and Jane Does 1-50; Debra Rinaudo,

Executive Director, State of Arizona

Board of Behavioral Health Examiners,

Amy Shelton, Dep. Dir., Cedric Davis, Bd.

Chair, Steve Legendre, Bd. Member, Jose

Herrera, Bd. Member, Ruth Lee, Bd.

Member, Sharon "Del" Worley, Bd.

Member, Dan Wright, Bd. Member, Laura

Waterman, Bd. Member,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1946-PHX-LOA

ORDER

 

Defendant State of Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners having filed

its Motion To Dismiss (docket # 19) on September 11, 2006,

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Arizona shall file on or before October 2,

2006 its written election to either consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge

or a written election to have the case reassigned to a United States district judge.

It is Plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. The failure of

Plaintiff to respond to Defendant State of Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners'

Motion To Dismiss (docket # 19) may in the discretion of the Court be deemed a consent to

the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing

Case 2:06-cv-01946-MHM Document 21 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

the complaint as to this Defendant pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651

(9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

Plaintiff is hereby advised that the United States Supreme Court has made

clear: federal "judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants"

because requiring trial judges to explain the details of federal procedure or act as the pro se's

counsel "would undermine district judges' [or magistrate judges'] role as impartial

decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct 2441, 2446 (2004). Therefore,

Plaintiff is forewarned that it can not unfairly assist Plaintiff in responding to the pending

dispositive motion or any other motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. That Plaintiff shall have until 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2006 within which

to file a Response to Plaintiff to respond to Defendant State of Arizona Board of Behavioral

Health Examiners' Motion To Dismiss (docket # 19).

2. That Defendant State of Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners

shall have to 5:00 p.m. on October 27, 2006 to file a reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2005. The District’s Rules of Practice

may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other

rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro se does

not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates."

Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 13th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01946-MHM Document 21 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2