Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00794/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00794-1/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

Anthony Sanchez, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-794 PHX ROS (VAM)

)

CO II Rivas, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

This lawsuit was filed on April 22, 2004. All defendants

except Rivas and all counts except Count I were dismissed. (Doc.

5). Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint adding three

additional defendants. (Doc. 15). Motions to Dismiss were filed

and joined in. (Docs. 39, 46). The Court then granted the Motion

to Dismiss as to most of plaintiff's claims and all defendants

except defendant Rivas. (Doc. 51). Defendant Rivas filed an

Answer. (Doc. 52). The Court entered a Scheduling and Discovery

Order. (Doc. 56). The discovery deadline was July 24, 2006. 

On June 2, 2006, approximately one month before the discovery

deadline was to run, plaintiff filed a motion for an order

allowing depositions on 17 witnesses. Depositions of prison

personnel are typically not allowed because of the disruption to

prison operations. In addition, plaintiff would have to pay

witness fees and costs and the cost of a court reporter for each

deposition. In the past, plaintiff has indicated to the Court he

has absolutely no money. The relevance as to most of the

witnesses is marginal at best. Plaintiff may call at trial, if

there is a trial, such witnesses as he can afford at that time. 

Case 2:04-cv-00794-ROS Document 73 Filed 10/25/06 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

2

The Motion for Oral Depositions and the renewed Motion for Oral

Depositions will be denied. (Docs. 59, 70).

On June 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court

to appoint an expert witness (crime scene investigator) to

investigate the crime scene and testify that he was wronged. This

motion will also be denied. The Court typically does not appoint

experts and pay experts for plaintiffs in civil rights cases. It

is plaintiff's responsibility to retain and pay his own experts.

On July 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay

Proceedings. (Doc. 66). It appears that plaintiff is asking for

a stay of the proceedings so that his deposition will not go

forward. He indicates he has filed a motion for appointment of

counsel to represent him in the deposition. Previous motions for

appointment of counsel were denied. Plaintiff seems to indicate

that answering the questions in the deposition will incriminate

him in a criminal case. The defendant has not responded to the

Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Court will require a response. 

On September 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for Written

Depositions and for the Court to appoint and pay a court reporter

so that he may take his depositions. Again, plaintiff lists

numerous written questions he wishes to ask of the defendant and

other witnesses within the prison system. The Court does not pay

for court reporters for plaintiffs in their lawsuits. Plaintiff

has indicated he has no money in the past. The Court has reviewed

the questions which plaintiff wishes to ask and they are

objectionable. In addition, the discovery deadline has run and

defendant Rivas has responded to discovery already.

Defendant has asked for an extension of time on the

Case 2:04-cv-00794-ROS Document 73 Filed 10/25/06 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

3

dispositive motions deadline. (Doc. 72). Defendant indicates

that the need for additional time was occasioned by responding to

numerous written discovery requests by plaintiff and the press of

work in other cases. The Court will grant defendant's Motion for

an extension of time and allow dispositive motions to be filed up

to December 26, 2006.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion for Oral

Examination of Witnesses. (Doc. 59).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion for

Appointment of an Expert Witness. (Doc. 61).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Rivas shall respond to

plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings. (Doc. 66). The response

shall be filed no later than November 10, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's renewed Motion for

Oral Depositions. (Doc. 70).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion for Written

Depositions. (Doc. 71).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion for

Appointment of a Court Reporter. (Doc. 71).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting defendant's Motion for an

extension to file dispositive motions. (Doc. 72). Dispositive

motions shall be filed by all parties no later than December 26,

2006.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00794-ROS Document 73 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 3