Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

Eulandas J. Flowers, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sandra Lawrence, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08184-PCT-JAT (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a prisoner confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in 

Florence, Arizona. He filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Doc. 1). By Order issued December 2, 2014 (Doc. 9), the Court screened Plaintiff’s 

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) to determine legal sufficiency. Plaintiff 

sought to cure noted deficiencies by filing a Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 10). By Order (Doc. 27) issued April 1, 2015, the Court screened the 

proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his 

Complaint. Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment arising from excessive 

force used against Plaintiff by Defendant Young and a failure to intercede by Defendants 

L. Marshall and Batchlor. Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges a violation of the 

Eighth Amendment as well as a violation of Article 2 of the Arizona Constitution. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied basic necessities and medical treatment as a result of 

the actions and omissions of Defendants S. Lawrence, Contreas, L. Marshall, Coleman, 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 71 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Young, Dean, Shane and Batchlor committed while Plaintiff was on defecation watch. 

Defendants L. Marshall, Young, Coleman, Contreas, S. Lawrence, Shane, Dean filed an 

Answer (Docs. 29, 42, 48) to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26). Service 

was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Batchlor (Doc. 46). 

 Pursuant to the Court’s Order of April 1, 2015, Plaintiff is required to serve 

Defendant Batchlor “within 120 days of the filing of the Amended Complaint or within 

60 days of the filing of the Court’s Order, whichever is later . . . .” (Doc. 27 at 2). See 

also Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P.; LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff has failed to timely 

serve Defendant Batchlor. Therefore, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause no later than December 30, 2015 why 

the First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute as to 

Defendant Batchlor. 

 Pending before the Court are the following: Defendants’ Motion to Stay 

Discovery and to Continue Deadlines (First Request) (Doc. 60); Plaintiff’s Rule 56(F) 

Motion for Continuance, Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Rule 56(F) Motion for 

Continuance, and Memorandum of Law (Docs. 66, 67, 68); and Plaintiff’s “Motion for 

Enlargement of Time for Extension of Time to Answer Summary Judgement/Judgement 

on the Pleadings (First Request)” (Doc. 70). Further briefing is unnecessary to a 

determination of the issues. 

 By Order (Doc. 65) filed November 16, 2015, the Court extended Plaintiff’s time 

to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings on Count II to December 30, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

“Motion for Enlargement of Time for Extension of Time” (Doc. 70) will be denied as 

moot. 

 Plaintiff’s Rule 56(F) Motion for Continuance (Doc. 66) will be granted. Plaintiff 

has set forth good cause for the Court to extend Plaintiff’s time to respond to Defendants’ 

pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff asserts that discovery remains 

outstanding on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Response time has 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 71 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

been extended to December 30, 2015 by Order (Doc. 65) filed November 16, 2015. 

 Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and to Continue Deadlines (Doc. 60) will 

be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

addresses the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court in its discretion 

will not further delay or stay discovery as discovery relates to the issue of exhaustion. 

Any discovery necessary for a full consideration of the issue of exhaustion shall proceed 

without delay. Discovery on the merits of Plaintiff’s underlying claims will be stayed. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 60) 

regarding the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

 As to all other issues, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and to Continue 

Deadlines (Doc. 60). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED staying discovery unrelated to the issue of 

exhaustion of administrative remedies pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Administratively Exhaust Claims 

and Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Count II (Doc. 58). 

 Deadlines are reset as follows: 

 Last day for Plaintiff to file expert witness list and reports – 30 days after 

resolution of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58); 

 Last day for Defendants to file expert witness list and reports – 60 days 

after the resolution of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 

58); 

 Last day to complete discovery and supplement discovery – 90 days after 

resolution of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58); 

 Last day to take depositions – 90 days after resolution of Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58); 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 71 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 Dispositive motion deadline – 120 days after resolution of Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58); 

 Joint proposed pretrial order deadline – August 24, 2016 or 30 days after 

the Court’s ruling on any pending dispositive motion that does not dispose 

of the case. 

 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Rule 56(F) Motion for Continuance (Docs. 

66, 67, 68). Plaintiff shall file his Response no later than December 30, 2015. 

 IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time for 

Extension of Time to Answer Summary Judgement/Judgement on the Pleadings (First 

Request)” (Doc. 70). 

 Dated this 24th day of November, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 71 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 4