Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02789/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02789-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lawrence Eugene Gomes,

Plaintiff

-vsCharles Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-14-2789-PHX-PGR (JFM)

Order, 

Report & Recommendation

Under consideration are Plaintiff's Motion for Lien, filed February 26, 2016 (Doc. 

332), Motion for Relevant Insurance Agreement and Writ of Execution, filed March 4, 

2016 (Doc. 335), [Motion for] Writ of Execution, filed March 4, 2016 (Doc. 336); and 

[Motion for] Order for Costs, filed March 10, 2016 (Doc. 345). 

Background – Plaintiff has brought suit against Defendants Ende, Erno, and 

Nwaohia arising out of allegations that Defendant Nwaohia administered adulterated 

insulin to Plaintiff, resulting in him contracting hepatitis, and that Defendants Ende and 

Erno failed to respond appropriately after the incident involving Nwaohia. 

On February 11, 2016, the Court granted a final partial default judgment against 

Defendant Nwaohia in the amount of $25,000. (Order 2/11/16, Doc. 324; Final Partial 

Judgment 2/11/16, Doc. 325.) 

Litigation with the other Defendants is ongoing.

Referral – The undersigned magistrate judge has handled this matter with regard 

to non-dispositive, pre-trial proceedings under a referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A) (pretrial matters) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) (Prisoner Civil Rights 

Complaints). The undersigned continues to handle the proceedings against the 

remaining defendants on that basis. 

The post-judgment proceedings under Rule 69 regarding the judgment against 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 9
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

Defendant Nwaohia have now been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(3) (additional duties) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(b) (Supplementary Proceedings). 

Although the referral order does not specify, the undersigned construes this referral as 

permitting a ruling by the undersigned on matters not amounting to an order dispositive 

of a claim, but requiring a report and recommendation on dispositive matters. See 

Columbia Record Productions v. Hot Wax Records, Inc., 966 F.2d 515, 516 (9th Cir. 

1992) (consent required for magistrate judge to rule on post-judgment matter amounting 

to a “final order”); King v. Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1184–85 (7th Cir.1987) 

(analyzing distinction between appealable and no-appealable orders as basis for 

delineating magistrate judge authority over post-judgment proceedings). 

Motion for Judgment Liens - In his Motion for Lien (Doc. 332), Plaintiff

reiterates his claims judgment against Nwaohia and the related underlying facts. He 

seeks a lien against various assets of Defendant Nwaohia in Lewisville, Texas. In 

addition he seeks liens against: (1) AB Staffing Solutions LLC, the employer of 

Defendant Nwaohia; (2) AB Staffing’s insurance carrier; (3) the Arizona Department of 

Administration, Risk Management Division; (4) the insurance carrier for Wexford 

Health Source, the ADOC contractor who contracted with AB Staffing for Nwaohia’s 

services. 

No response has been filed to this motion.

This Court’s judgment constitutes a lien on the property of the judgment debtor 

located in Arizona, to the same extent as an Arizona judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1962. No 

lien need be granted by the Court, but state procedures applicable to recordation of the 

judgment necessary to establish such lien do apply to the judgment. Id. Cf. Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 33-964 (judgment lien on real property requires recordation). 

However, the Court notes that the only judgment debtor under the Court’s 

Judgment is Defendant Nwaohia. Plaintiff’s motion alleges that Defendant Nwaohia and 

all her assets are located in Lewisville, Texas. Accordingly, this Court’s judgment 

would not establish a lien on property located there. Plaintiff is, of course, not without 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 9
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

remedy. He may “register” this Court’s judgment in a federal district court in the state of 

Texas, and obtain a writ of execution from such court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1963. “A 

judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of 

the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner.” 28 U.S.C. § 1963. It 

appears, for example, that Lewisville, Texas is located in the Sherman Division of the 

Eastern District of Texas, Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street, 

Room 216, Sherman, Texas 75090. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff has not obtained judgments against AB Staffing, 

Wexford, or the Arizona Department of Administration, nor are they parties to this 

action. Accordingly, no judgment liens are currently possible against these entities.

Thus, this Court has already done all it can do with respect to a judgment lien 

based on the default judgment against Defendant Nwaohia, and this motion should be 

denied as moot. 

Motions for Insurance Agreements and Writs of Execution – Next under 

consideration are Plaintiff’s “Motion Ordering AB-Staffing Solutions LLC, for Relevant 

Insurance Agreement on Former Employer [sic] (Nwadiuto Jan Nwaohia) and Writ of 

Execution” (Doc. 335) and [Motion for] Writ of Execution (Doc. 336), filed March 4, 

2016.

In the first motion (Doc. 335), Plaintiff seeks an order directing AB Staffing to 

notify it insurance carrier of his judgment against Defendant Nwaohia, and directing 

them to provide the Plaintiff Defendant’s date of birth, social security number, next of 

kin, make of vehicle, drivers license number, and references to assist Plaintiff in 

pursuing collection from Defendant, as well as information on any applicable insurance 

coverage. He also seeks insurance coverage information from Wexford Health. 

In his second motion (Doc. 336), Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

69, notes the history of the case, including Defendant Nwaohia’s failure to defend, and 

(although using the term “writ of execution) asks for discovery of her assets, 

employment, etc. at her new home in Lewisville, Texas. Plaintiff seeks a subpoena 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 9
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

duces tecum to Ms. Nwaohia’s landlord to obtain here employment, bank accounts, etc. 

He requests similar discovery directed to unidentified persons at her prior address in 

Frisco, Texas. Plaintiff further requests discovery from AB Staffing to obtain 

information on any insurance coverage applicable to Ms. Nwaohia’s liability, whether 

claims have been made against it, as well as Nwaohia’s social security number, and date 

of birth. 

Finally, Plaintiff complains that the undersigned magistrate judge has been 

prejudiced against Plaintiff in failing to grant leave to amend to name AB Staffing. 

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to name AB Staffing as a defendant (as an alternative to 

discovery on the company’s insurance coverage). Because this portion of the motion is 

in the nature of an objection to an order of the undersigned magistrate judge, the 

undersigned will make no recommendation with regard to that portion.

Writ of Execution Futile - A “writ of execution” is generally described as “[a]

court order directing a sheriff or other officer to enforce a judgment, [usually] by seizing 

and selling the judgment debtor's property.” Execution, Black's Law Dictionary (10th 

ed. 2014). 

Assuming Plaintiff truly intends to seek a writ of execution, he fails to establish 

the utility of obtaining one from this Court. With regard to Defendant Nwaohia, writs of 

execution issued by this Court (except those in favor of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2413) may only be served within the state of Arizona. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4.1 

(“anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located”); 

35B C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 1306 (Enforcement of Execution in Another 

District). Thus, the issuance of a writ of execution against Defendant Nwaohia by this 

Court would appear to be futile.

Again, Plaintiff is not without remedy. He may “register” this Court’s judgment 

in a federal district court in the state of Texas, and obtain a writ of execution from such 

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1963. 

Plaintiff has not obtained judgments against AB Staffing or Wexford, nor are they 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 9
5

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

parties to this action. Accordingly, no writs of execution may be issued against these 

entities. Similarly, Plaintiff has not obtained judgments against any of the referenced 

insurers, and thus may not obtain writs of execution against them.

Plaintiff may be able to recover from a liable insurer, but that is accomplished 

through a form of execution known as a writ of garnishment. See Grenada Bank v. 

Willey, 694 F.2d 85, 87 (5th Cir. 1982) (writ of garnishment permitted under portion of 

Rule 69 incorporating state procedures for execution of judgment). However, Plaintiff 

has yet to identify any specific garnishees on which service may be directed. See Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. § 12-1572 (application must include garnishee’s address) and 12-1574 (writ of 

garnishment must specify name and address of garnishee). 

Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the Court deny without 

prejudice the portion of these motions seeking writs of execution or writs of 

garnishment. 

Subpoenas Duces Tecum – At the heart of these motions, Plaintiff seeks to serve 

subpoenas duces tecum to secure information from Defendant Nwaohia, and third parties 

AB Staffing and Wexford Health and Defendant’s landlords, etc. to assist Plaintiff in 

locating assets upon which he can execute. 

Rule 69(a)(2) provides: “In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment 

creditor or a successor in interest whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery 

from any person--including the judgment debtor--as provided in these rules or by the 

procedure of the state where the court is located.” 

Thus, the Court would be inclined to issue subpoenas duces tecum to permit 

Plaintiff to obtain information in aid of executing on his judgment. However, Plaintiff 

has not provided the Court with any proposed forms of subpoenas. 

The Court is concerned about the proposal to provide Plaintiff, a prisoner, with a 

social security number and/or date of birth for Defendant Nwaohia without some 

specific, proper, intended use. Ordinarily, such information would be utilized to locate a 

judgment debtor. But Plaintiff has already located Defendant Nwaohia. 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 5 of 9
6

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

Plaintiff proposes a subpoena directed to Defendant’s prior address in Frisco, 

Texas. Subpoenas must be directed to a “person” or “organization”, and may not simply 

be directed at an address. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 30(b)(6) (subpoena directed to 

organizations), and 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) (command directed to person). 

Finally, the Court also observes that a subpoena for a deposition of Defendant 

Nwaohia might be considered to allow Plaintiff to question Defendant about potential 

assets, income, etc. However, Rule 45(c)(1) limits the depositions of parties to the state 

of their residence. Cf. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1631 (judgment debtor examination limited 

to county of debtor’s residence). Moreover, Plaintiff proffers nothing to suggest his 

ability to arrange for the conduct of such a deposition. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice the portions of these motions 

seeking subpoenas. Any renewed motions for subpoenas duces tecum should be 

accompanied with a proposed form of subpoena duces tecum, including names and 

addresses for service, documents to be produced, etc., and directing service of a response 

within 30 days of the date of service. 

Motion for Costs – Plaintiff has also filed a [Motion for] Order for Costs, filed 

(Doc. 345). Although briefing on the motion is not complete, the Court finds further 

briefing unnecessary to a fair adjudication of the motion. 

Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), Plaintiff purports to seek costs in 

the amount of $745.88 “for postage, medications relevant to the injuries caused by 

Nwaohia, and other legal materials.” Plaintiff seeks to recover these costs from the 

Arizona Department of Corrections or Arizona Risk Management. 

Rule 54(d)(1) permits the Clerk of the Court to tax costs (other than attorneys 

fees) on 14 days’ notice. However, this rule applies only to the taxation of costs against 

losing parties. See e.g. Levine v. Berman, 178 F.2d 440, 445 (7th Cir. 1949)

(“Ordinarily, of course, costs are taxed against the losing and not the prevailing party.”). 

Neither the Arizona Department of Corrections nor the state’s Risk Management 

division are parties to this action. Accordingly, no costs may be assessed against them. 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 6 of 9
7

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

Moreover, Plaintiff’s filing is insufficient to permit the taxation of costs against 

Defendant Nwaohia. Local Civil Rule 54.1(a) provides:

(a) Procedure for Filing Bill of Costs. Costs shall be taxed

as provided in Rule 54(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party 

entitled to costs shall, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of 

final judgment, unless time is extended under Rule 6(b), Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, file with the Clerk of Court and serve 

upon all parties, a bill of costs on a form provided by the Clerk. This 

bill of costs shall include a memorandum of the costs and necessary 

disbursements, so itemized that the nature of each can be readily 

understood, and, where available, documentation of requested costs 

in all categories must be attached. The bill of costs shall be verified 

by a person acquainted therewith.

Plaintiff’s filing is delinquent. Judgment was entered on February 11, 2016 (Doc. 325). 

The instant filing was not filed until almost one month later, on March 10, 2016, and is 

dated March 3, 2016. Plaintiff has neither sought nor obtained an extension of time.

Moreover, there is no itemization of the costs claimed. Plaintiff does attach an 

inmate statement and a tally of some $274 in costs. But the balance is not itemized.

Nor has Plaintiff utilized the approved form, AO 133, available on the Court’s 

website at http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/forms. 

Nor has Plaintiff verified his requests.

Finally, apparently at least some portion of the claimed costs appear to be for 

medications. Plaintiff provides no authority for the taxation of such expenses as costs.

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs 

the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily 

obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any 

materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the 

case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of 

interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special 

interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 1920. Similarly, Local Civil Rule 54.1(e) limits awards of costs to: (1) 

Clerk's Fees and Service Fees; (2) Fees Incident to Transcripts; (3) Deposition Costs; (4) 

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Witness Fees, Mileage and Subsistence; (5) Exemplification and Copies of Papers; (6) 

Maps, Charts, Models, Photographs, Summaries, Computations and Statistical 

Summaries; (7) Interpreter Fees; (8) Docket Fees; (9) Fees paid in Removed Cases; and 

(10) “Other items may be taxed with prior Court approval.” 

Although the Court has some discretion in taxing costs, Plaintiff’s claimed 

medication costs are not in the nature of a cost of litigation, but a damage which would 

be subsumed in the judgment already awarded.

Accordingly, this motion should be denied. 

ORDERS

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that to the extent it seeks the issuance and 

service of subpoenas duces tecum, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relevant Insurance Agreement 

and Writ of Execution, filed March 4, 2016 (Doc. 335) is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent it seeks the issuance and service 

of subpoenas duces tecum, Plaintiff’s [Motion for] Writ of Execution, filed March 4, 

2016 (Doc. 336) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

RECOMMENDATIONS

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for Lien, filed 

February 26, 2016 (Doc. 332) be DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that to the extent it seeks the issuance and 

service of a writ of execution, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relevant Insurance Agreement and 

Writ of Execution, filed March 4, 2016 (Doc. 335) be DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent it seeks the issuance and service 

of a writ of execution, Plaintiff’s [Motion for] Writ of Execution, filed March 4, 2016 

(Doc. 336) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s [Motion for] Order for 

Costs, filed (Doc. 345) be DENIED.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: March 23, 2016

14-2789-332o Order 16 03 18 on Motion for Lien.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02789-PGR-JFM Document 361 Filed 03/23/16 Page 9 of 9