Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Floyd v. ADA County

United States District Court, D. Idaho

May 21, 2019

JAMES ALLEN FLOYD, Plaintiff,
v.
ADA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On 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.

         On 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.

         Defendants 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[1] claims against Ada County and the Ada County Jail.

         Following 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.

         Ultimately, 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.

         On 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.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. “Rule 60 B” Motion (Dkt. 48)

         In his 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, [2] there is a catch all provision (subsection (6)) which allows the Court to grant relief for “any other reason that justifies relief.”

         Floyd 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.