Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02064/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02064-1/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

Stephen C. Dean, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-2064 PHX SRB (VAM)

)

City of Phoenix, ) O R D E R

)

 Defendant. )

This lawsuit was removed to federal court on July 12, 2005. 

(Doc. 1). The Court entered a scheduling order with discovery to

close by January 17, 2006. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff asked for

additional time to conduct discovery. (Doc. 9). The Court

granted the request and extended the discovery deadline to 

April 17, 2006. (Doc. 19). The parties had numerous discovery

disputes which were resolved. On June 16, 2006, the sole

defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 27, 28). A 

Rand notice was issued by the Court. (Doc. 29). Plaintiff filed

his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30) and

defendant replied (Doc. 31). The reference was withdrawn with

regard to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 32). 

On August 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion to Add One

Defendant (Bradley Bryce). (Doc. 33). Defendant responded

opposing the addition of defendant Bryce. (Doc. 35). Defendant

pointed out that plaintiff has known about defendant Bryce and his

Case 2:05-cv-02064-SRB-VAM Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 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

activities with regard to the lawsuit since 2003. In addition, as

pointed out by defendant, the discovery deadline has run and a

dispositive motion is pending before the Court. Further, it

appears that any claim against defendant Bryce is barred by the

statute of limitations. Therefore, the Motion to Add One

Defendant will be denied.

On August 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Protective

Order." (Doc. 34). Defendant moved to strike the "Motion for

Protective Order." (Doc. 36). A review of the document entitled

"Request for Protective Order" shows that it is not a request for

Court action except to ask that the Court file certain documents

in evidence. This is premature. It is unclear whether there will

be a trial and, if there is, plaintiff will have an opportunity to

have documents marked for the trial. The remainder of the

document argues the merits of plaintiff's case. It does not end

with a request for any kind of Court action. Therefore, the

Motion to Strike is warranted and the "Request for Protective

Order" will be stricken.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion to Add One

Defendant. (Doc. 33).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting defendant's Motion to Strike. 

(Doc. 36). Plaintiff's document entitled "Request for Protective

Order" found at Doc. 34 shall be stricken.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02064-SRB-VAM Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2