Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

WO

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 

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 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Eulandas J. Flowers’s “Motion for 

Guidance.” (Doc. 120). In his motion, Plaintiff requests two forms of relief from the 

Court: (1) that the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order, due June 3, 2016, be extended five 

(5) days; and (2) for assistance regarding a document production request. The Court 

addresses each in turn. 

Plaintiff first asks the Court to give him five additional days to prepare for a May 

20, 2016, meeting scheduled between the parties in order to produce a joint Proposed

Final Pretrial Order in advance of the June 16, 2016, bench trial on the issue of 

exhaustion. (Doc. 120 at 1). Plaintiff states that due to his inability to utilize the e-filing 

system, he only learned of the Court’s Order setting the bench trial on May 11, 2016, five 

days after the Order was issued. (Id.). The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s predicament, 

but will not alter the dates set in the May 5, 2016, Order. (Doc. 116). The joint Proposed 

Final Pretrial Order is due by June 3, 2016. (Id. at 2). The Final Pretrial Conference for 

the bench trial only will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. (Id. at 1). The bench trial 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 121 Filed 05/18/16 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 

on the issue of exhaustion will be held on Thursday, June 16, 2016. (Id.). Plaintiff’s 

request is akin to a motion to stay, and the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated 

that he would “suffer sufficient hardship or inequity” having to proceed on the current 

schedule. Schneider v. Sutter Amador Hosp., 621 Fed. Appx. 480, 481 (9th Cir. 2015).

Even taking into account the delay in receiving the Order, Plaintiff still had nine days to 

draft his contributions to the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order. 

Plaintiff next appears to ask the Court for assistance regarding a discovery issue. 

Plaintiff states that he has yet to receive “a copy of the video grievance . . . at issue to 

review and prepare for the [trial] as requested from [Defendants].” (Doc. 120 at 2). The 

Court is unable to grant Plaintiff any relief based on the motion filed. The Court observes 

that on May 5, 2015, a “Notice of Second Request for Production of Documents” was 

made by Plaintiff concerning DVDs allegedly containing video of Plaintiff’s “emergency 

grievance.” (Doc. 115). If a discovery dispute exists between the parties, the Court refers 

Plaintiff to page three of Magistrate Judge Willett’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Scheduling 

Order: 

Discovery Disputes: Motions on discovery matters are 

strongly discouraged. Parties are directed to LRCiv 7.2, 

which prohibits filing discovery motions unless parties have 

first conferred in good faith, in person or by telephone, and 

attempted to resolve any discovery difficulties. If the parties 

cannot reach a resolution, they may file a motion. Motions, 

responses and replies shall not exceed six (6) pages each, and 

must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and 

LRCiv 37.1. Discovery motions will not be considered after 

the discovery deadline. 

(Doc. 49 at 3). The Court encourages Plaintiff to follow the procedures set forth in the 

above-cited portion of the Scheduling Order. 

Finally, Plaintiff asks that the Court be cognizant of the fact that “e-filing delivery 

and pick-up at this Unit [are] only done on Wednesdays.” (Doc. 120 at 3). Thus, if the 

Court issues an Order requiring that Plaintiff undertake some substantive action after 

Wednesday, that he be allotted an appropriate time to complete the requirement, given 

the restriction on when he receives the Court’s Order. The Court will endeavor to remain 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 121 Filed 05/18/16 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 

aware of this limitation. 

 For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Guidance, (Doc. 120), is hereby 

DENIED. 

 Dated this 18th day of May, 2016. 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 121 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 3