Zamora 141929 v. Corizon Health Incorporated ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Eric C Zamora, No. CV-20-00043-TUC-DCB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, a prisoner acting pro se, filed this action on January 27, 2020. The 16 Amended Complaint alleged that certain Defendants failed to protect him, and he was 17 beaten by other prisoners injuring his knee. Subsequently, Defendants Corizon and Riley 18 violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his serious 19 medial needs related to the knee injury. The failure to protect claim was dismissed by this 20 Court in its screening Order. (Doc. 7.) The Court issued a Scheduling Order (Doc. 13) 21 including 150 days for discovery, which commenced on April 20, 2021, when the Court 22 denied a motion by Defendants for summary judgment based on an alleged failure by 23 Plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies. Order (Doc. 35)). 24 Pursuant to an extension of time the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary 25 Judgment on November 17, 2021. (Riley MSJ (Docs. 45 and 46); Corizon (Docs. 47 and 26 48.) On March 21, 2022, the Court issued an Order notifying the Plaintiff that to survive 27 the motion for summary judgment, he must file a Response and accompanying Statement 28 of Facts by April 29,2022. (Order (Doc. 49)). On April 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion || for Extension of Time because he doesn’t understand the requirement to file a Separate || Statement of Facts and needs time to seek documents from the Health Unit/Medical. 3 The time for discovery closed October 20, 2021. The Plaintiff does not explain why 4|| he could not secure his medical and/or health unit records during the time allowed for 5 || discovery. He does not identify a specific record that he does not have that he needs to 6|| respond to the Defendants’ motions. The Defendants have relied on Plaintiffs’ medical || records and the Plaintiff may rely on those same documents. The Court will not waive the 8 || requirement for a Statement of Facts; the Statement of Facts should include a citation to 9|| the evidentiary record supporting each statement of fact. To waive this requirement would || be a disservice to the Plaintiff because it would jeopardize his ability to survive summary 11 || judgment. See (Order: Rand Notice (Doc. 49) at 2 (citing LRCiv. 56.1(b)); Fed. R. Civ. P. || 56(c)(1)(A) nd (B). “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern 13 || other litigants.” American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 14}, 1108 (th Cir. 2000). The Plaintiff must do the best he can. Persons proceeding pro se are 15 || required to follow the federal and local rules 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 50) is GRANTED 18 || IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: the deadline for filing the Response and || Statement of Facts is extended to: June 4, 2022. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS SHALL 20 || BE GRANTED WITHOUT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. 21 Dated this 5th day of May, 2022. 22 SS QS Honorabje David C. But 26 United StatesPistrict Judge 27 28 -2-