United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff James Allen Floyd's
“Rule 60 B” Motion (Dkt. 48) and a Renewed Motion
for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 49). Having reviewed the
record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the
interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the Motions
without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R.
7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
finds good cause to GRANT in PART and DENY in PART
Floyd's Rule 60(b) Motion and DENY his Motion for
Appointment of Counsel.
August 25, 2014, officers arrested Floyd and placed him in
the Ada County Jail, located in Boise, Idaho. Floyd remained
there for approximately one year. Floyd asserts that he has
numerous medical problems which Ada County officials failed
to adequately address during his time at the Ada County Jail.
April 7, 2017, Floyd filed this lawsuit against Ada County,
the Ada County Jail, the Ada County Sheriff, and a handful of
staff members from both the Ada County Jail and the
Sheriff's Department. On May 23, 2017, Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Dkt. 4.
Shortly thereafter, Floyd filed an Amended Complaint,
rendering the first Motion to Dismiss moot. On June 16, 2017,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. The Court granted the Motion on December 21, 2017,
but gave Floyd an opportunity to amend his complaint to
comply with its order. Dkt. 27. On January 19, 2018, Floyd
filed a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 29.
subsequently filed a third Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 30. Upon
review, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motion, striking some of Floyd's claims
in their entirety, but allowing him to proceed on two Eight
Amendment claims: one for inadequate mental health treatment
and one for inadequate treatment of foot pain. Dkt. 36. The
Court allowed Floyd to continue with each claim against
certain individuals and collectively as
Monell claims against Ada County and the Ada
the Court's decision outlining Floyd's viable claims,
the parties were advised that they needed to file a joint
litigation plan and discovery plan. Dkt. 38. Defendants
indicate that although they tried to contact Floyd on
multiple occasions, they were never able to do so. Dkt. 40.
The Court and counsel waited five months for Floyd to weigh
in on these matters.
on December 18, 2018, Defendants filed their own discovery
plan (Dkt. 42) and litigation plan (Dkt. 43), noting that
neither had been stipulated to by Floyd. Absent any input
from Floyd, on January 8, 2019, the Court entered its
Scheduling Order adopting Defendants' proposed dates.
Dkt. 44. As the Court does with all pro se
plaintiffs-including prisoner plaintiffs-it sent Floyd a copy
of this order. On January 23, 2019, the Court's
Scheduling Order was returned as undelivered. Dkt. 45.
Ironically, around the same time, Floyd contacted the Court
asking for a copy of the docket sheet. Dkt. 46. Noting that
this request (Dkt. 46) had a different address from that
which was on file, the Court corrected Floyd's address
and again sent the above information.
February 13, 2019, Floyd filed a motion-entitled “Rule
60 B” motion- asking the court to “set aside the
scheduling order dated January 8, 2019, and other rulings
back to 7/20/2018.” Dkt. 48, at 1. On the same day,
Floyd filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 49. The
Court will address each in turn.
“Rule 60 B” Motion (Dkt. 48)
first Motion, Floyd asks that the Court “set
aside” the current Scheduling Order under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) states that “on
Motion and just terms, the Court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding, ” for certain enumerated reasons. While
none of the reasons outlined in Rule 60(b)(1) - (5) appear to
apply here,  there is a catch all provision (subsection
(6)) which allows the Court to grant relief for “any
other reason that justifies relief.”
explains that he because he “suffers from ADHD,
Bi-Polar [disorder],  manic depression, and [because he
underwent] an MRI for a Brain Tumor in July 2018, ” the
Court should grant him some type of reprieve from its
Scheduling Order. Dkt. 48, at 1. Additionally, Floyd asserts
that he is ...