Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01079/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01079-0/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

Robert William Dutcher,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01079-PHX-ROS (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Robert William Dutcher, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Eyman (ASPC-Eyman) in Florence, Arizona, filed a Second Amended 

Complaint on March 2, 2016, alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (Doc. 40). The Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered Defendants Corizon, Stowe, Shields, and Roberts to 

answer Counts One through Five (Doc. 42 at 10). Defendants Corizon Health, Inc., 

(“Corizon”) Stowe, and Shields have answered (Docs. 48, 53). Service was returned 

unexecuted as to Defendant Roberts (Doc. 47). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

fully briefed “Motion for the Assistance of the Court” (Doc. 51). The Court sets forth its 

ruling below. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Corizon and Charles L. Ryan to 

provide “the name, last known addresses and loctation [sic] to the Court ‘under seal’ so 

Case 2:15-cv-01079-ROS Document 59 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 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

that service of Defendant Corizon Regional Medical Director, from before, during and 

after May 14, 2013 . . . may be effected as Ordered, (Doc. #42) without violating 

A.D.O.C. and Corizon Health, Inc., security concerns.” (Doc. 51 at 2). In its Reponse, 

Defendant Corizon states that it “has no record of a Dr. Roberts having worked for 

Corizon in Arizona.” (Doc. 52 at 1). Neither counsel for Corizon nor Corizon has 

knowledge of Dr. Roberts and his last known address. Therefore, Defendant Corizon 

urges the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 

In his Reply, Plaintiff attaches an Arizona Department of Corrections Health 

Services Communique dated May 14, 2013 signed by “Roberts” which states: “In regard 

to your outside consult to see cataract/glaucoma specialist, this request has been denied at 

this time by Corizon Regional Medical Director. . . .” (Doc. 56 at 3). Nothing in the 

note indicates that Roberts is a doctor with Corizon or that Roberts is Corizon’s Regional 

Medical Director. In addition, the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) is not a 

party in this case. 

Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs the issuance of a subpoena. Plaintiff has failed 

to comply with the requirements of Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., in seeking information from 

non-party ADOC. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with one 

subpoena duces tecum so that Plaintiff may obtain the information he seeks through the 

proper use of a subpoena duces tecum. As to Defendant Corizon, Plaintiff must use the 

discovery tools available to him through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 

of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to obtain the name of the 

Corizon Regional Medical Director during the time frame Plaintiff describes. The Court 

does not conduct discovery for litigants. See United States v. Merrill, 746 F. 2d 458, 465 

(9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1165, (1985) (finding that even pro se litigants 

must follow the same rules of procedure and evidence that govern litigants represented by 

counsel); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks

the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”). The Court will extend 

time for service of process on Defendant Roberts for an additional sixty (60) days from 

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-01079-ROS Document 59 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 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 

the date of filing of this order to allow the Plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding the 

address of Defendant Roberts. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion for Assistance of the Court” (Doc. 

51). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court send to Plaintiff one blank 

subpoena duces tecum for the limited purpose of conducting discovery on ADOC 

regarding the address and name of Defendant Roberts. Plaintiff shall fill out the 

subpoena duces tecum and mail it back to the Clerk of Court for service of process 

through the United States Marshal (“USMS”). The address of Defendant Roberts shall be 

filed under seal and provided to the USMS for service of process. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending time for service of process of Defendant 

Roberts an additional sixty (60) days from the date of filing of this order. 

Dated this 28th day of September, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:15-cv-01079-ROS Document 59 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 3