Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08141/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08141-3/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 L. Rodrigues,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08141-PCT-DGC (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Anthony L. Rodrigues is a pro se prisoner currently confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex-Corrections Corporation of America’s (“CCA”) Red Rock 

Correctional Center (“RRCC”) in Eloy, Arizona. On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

Second Amended Complaint alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint involves his incarceration at

Arizona State Prison Complex-Kingman. The Court ordered Defendants to answer Count 

Two and dismissed all other claims. (Doc. 16 at 7). All Defendants have timely

answered or responded and all issues are joined. (Docs. 27, 29, 66). A fully briefed 

Motion to Dismiss is pending. (Docs. 29, 66, 88, 90). 

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary 

Restraining Order (Docs. 21, 22) to which Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26) and 

Supplemental Response (Doc. 85). Plaintiff filed his Reply on February 25, 2016. (Doc. 

Case 3:14-cv-08141-DGC Document 96 Filed 03/14/16 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

95). Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order 

involves his incarceration at RRCC. 

Several motions are deemed ripe for consideration and are discussed below.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants Ryan and Diaz’ Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Medical Records 

(Doc. 84)

In Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 85), Defendants attach

Plaintiff’s medical records. Defendants request that the Court seal the Plaintiff’s medical 

records because they contain confidential, personal information. Defendants cite the 

Court to numerous cases which support the request. Plaintiff has not responded. For 

good cause shown, the Court will grant the Motion to Seal. 

B. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice Motion in Support of 

Preliminary Injunction and Request for TRO [Dkt. 82](Doc. 87)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s “Notice Motion In Support of Preliminary 

Injunction And Request for TRO” (Doc. 82) pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m) on the basis that 

Plaintiff’s Notice is not authorized by statute, rule, or court order. Plaintiff has failed to 

respond to Defendants’ Motion to Strike. The Court may deem Plaintiff’s failure to file 

an answering memorandum as consent to the granting of Defendants’ Motion and dispose 

of the Motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2 (i). In addition, to the extent Plaintiff’s Notice 

is an attempt to supplement his Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency 

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 21), such an attempt must be made through a 

properly filed motion. To the extent Plaintiff’s Notice is an attempt to raise rebuttal 

arguments to Defendants’ responsive briefing, the proper manner to raise such arguments 

is through a reply. Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendants’ 

Motion to Strike (Doc. 87).

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses

(Doc. 81) and Defendants’ Request for Extension of Deadline For Making 

Expert Disclosures (First Request) (Doc. 94)

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ fully briefed Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-08141-DGC Document 96 Filed 03/14/16 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 

29, 66) and Plaintiff’s fully briefed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency 

TRO (Doc. 21). On October 23, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order regarding 

discovery in the case (Doc. 35). In the interests of judicial and litigant economy, the 

parties request that extensions of time be granted to comply with the disclosure of expert 

witnesses. For good cause shown, the Court will grant the parties’ requests. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants Ryan and Diaz’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 84). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the 

proposed “Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E” to Defendants Ryan and Diaz’ Supplemental 

Response (Doc. 85). The proposed “Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E” is lodged under seal at 

Doc. 86. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 87). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s “Notice Motion In Support Of 

Preliminary Injunction And Request For TRO” (Doc. 82). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of 

Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses (Doc.81) and Defendants’ Request for Extension 

of Deadline For Making Expert Disclosures (First Request) (Doc. 94). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file his expert disclosure 60 days 

from the date of the Court’s ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss, should any claim 

survive. Defendants shall file their expert disclosures 90 days from the filing of the 

Court’s ruling, should any claim survive. 

Dated this 11th day of March, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 3:14-cv-08141-DGC Document 96 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 3