John J. Christenson v. Alice Schroder Warren, et al.
This text of John J. Christenson v. Alice Schroder Warren, et al. (John J. Christenson v. Alice Schroder Warren, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 John J. Christenson, No. CV-23-00181-TUC-AMM
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Alice Schroder Warren, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff John J. Christenson’s Motion for 16 Court Monitoring of Untreated Known Deadly Disease (Doc. 147), Letter of Rogatory 17 (Doc. 148), Motion for Updated Court Docket (Doc. 155), and Request for Guidance 18 (Doc. 156). The Court will address each motion in turn. 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated, brought this action alleging that 21 Defendants NaphCare, Alice Warren, Abel Salazar, Robin Myers, Jennifer Davie, and 22 Steven Biancardi failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to treat his 23 bilateral hip degeneration and resultant pain. (Docs. 1, 50-1.) The Court screened 24 Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 50-1 ¶¶ 68–180) 25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court concluded that Plaintiff stated an Eighth 26 Amendment claim, and it ordered Defendants to file an answer. (Docs. 8, 62.) 27 On July 3, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 106.) 28 The matter was fully briefed. (Docs. 106, 134–35.) On March 31, 2025, the Court granted 1 summary judgment in part and dismissed Defendants Biancardi, Davies, Myers, and 2 NaphCare. (Doc. 140 at 30.) The Court, however, denied summary judgement as to 3 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Warren and Salazar. (Id.) This 4 matter was referred for a settlement conference. (Id.) 5 A settlement conference was held before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri on 6 December 3, 2025. (Doc. 154.) The parties did not reach a settlement. (Id.) 7 II. Motion for Court Monitoring of Untreated Known Deadly Disease and 8 Letter of Rogatory 9 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Court Monitoring of Untreated Known Deadly Disease 10 (Doc. 147) and Letter of Rogatory (Doc. 148). The motion was fully briefed shortly 11 before the settlement conference. (Docs. 147, 150, 153.) Defendants did not respond to 12 Plaintiff’s Letter of Rogatory. Because the letter raises the same arguments as the motion, 13 the Court will construe Plaintiff’s letter as a supplement.1 14 Plaintiff states that he learned he contracted syphilis on April 18, 2025. (Doc. 147 15 at 2.) He alleges that Defendants have not provided the necessary medical care to treat 16 this disease. (Id.) Plaintiff also states that he has “another mystery and very painful left 17 knee infection and balance issues, possibly from long term untreated ‘chronic’ treatable 18 deadly venereal disease[.]” (Id.) He asks the Court to “weekly monitor Plaintiff’s medical 19 care.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff further seeks that “all referrals and requests be fielded by 20 ‘offsite’ providers” and “a Rule 706 court appointed medical expert for oversite.” (Id. at 6.) 21 In his Letter of Rogatory, Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants have not offered 22 a plan of care regarding Plaintiff’s syphilis. (Doc. 148 at 1.) He asks for copies of “all 23 communications regarding this known deadly disease from December 19, 2022 . . . .” (Id. 24 at 2.) 25
26 1 The Court may “ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion” and interpret the filing “to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se 27 motion’s claims and its underlying legal basis.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 28 381–82 (2003). 1 Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. 150.) They argue that Plaintiff seeks 2 preliminary injunctive relief over which the Court lacks authority because Plaintiff’s 3 claims regarding his venereal disease are not at issue in this lawsuit. (Id. at 1–2.) 4 The Court agrees. As such, the Court will deny the Motion for Court Monitoring 5 of Untreated Known Deadly Disease and Letter of Rogatory. As a threshold matter, 6 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief because he asks the Court to intervene to preserve his 7 rights prior to an adjudication on the merits of his claim. See, e.g., U.S. Philips Corp. v. 8 KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (“This principle stems from the 9 very purpose of a preliminary injunction, which is to preserve the status quo and the 10 rights of the parties until a final judgment issues in the cause.”). 11 A district court “lacks authority” to grant relief unless there is “a relationship 12 between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in 13 the underlying complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 14 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). “The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would 15 grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.’” Id. (quoting De 16 Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). No such relationship 17 exists where the “requested relief was not tied to the claims in the complaint.” Pinson v. 18 Estrada, 812 Fed. App’x 701, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming denial of motion for 19 injunctive relief to require defendants to provide certain medical care because, although 20 the underlying complaint alleged medical claims, they were not sufficiently related to the 21 medical claims raised in the motion for injunctive relief); Atwood v. Days, No. CV 20- 22 00623-PHX-JAT (JZB), 2021 WL 5811800, at *9 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2021) (same). 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Monitoring of Untreated Known Deadly Disease and 24 Letter of Rogatory raise issues that are not sufficiently related to this case. The only claim 25 remaining in this case is that Defendants Warren and Salazar failed to provide adequate 26 medical care to treat Plaintiff’s degenerative hip condition. (Docs. 1, 50-1.) His present 27 claims regarding a venereal disease, though medical in nature, are not related to his 28 degenerative hip condition nor the Eighth Amendment allegations against Defendants 1 Warren and Salazar. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion for Court Monitoring 2 of Untreated Known Deadly Disease and Letter of Rogatory. 3 III. Request for Guidance 4 On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “request [for] guidance from this Court on 5 how to proceed with Plaintiff’s approach to the continued deliberate indifference to 6 Plaintiff’s urgent medical needs, including monitoring and treatment.” (Doc. 156 at 1.) 7 He references his Motion for Court Monitoring of Untreated Known Deadly Disease. 8 (Id.) 9 For the reasons explained above, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Request for 10 Guidance as moot. Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Monitoring of 11 Untreated Known Deadly Disease, there are no further steps Plaintiff must take on the 12 motion. 13 IV. Motion for Updated Court Docket 14 On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion asking for a copy of the docket in this matter and a status update. (Doc. 155.) The Court will grant the motion 15 and direct the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket. 16 Furthermore, because the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth 17 Amendment claim against Defendants Warren and Salazar, and the parties did not reach a 18 settlement, this matter is ripe to proceed to trial. The Court will set a status conference 19 with the parties to discuss next steps. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 V.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John J. Christenson v. Alice Schroder Warren, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-j-christenson-v-alice-schroder-warren-et-al-azd-2025.