Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01760/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01760-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

Richard Steven Riess, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Karl Stansel, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1760-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. #26) and

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint (Doc. #12). On October 22, 2009, this

Court screened Plaintiff's Original Complaint (Doc. #1) and ordered two of the six named

defendants to file an answer to the eight counts alleged against them. See Doc. #4. The

Court dismissed the remaining four defendants. See id. On November 27, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint.

1. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if Plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

. . .

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 6
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 1

 Because the First Amended Complaint supersedes the Original Complaint, Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint is unnecessary and will be denied as moot.

- 2 -

2. First Amended Complaint.

An amended complaint supersedes its original complaint. Hal Roach Studios v.

Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). Causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged

in an amended complaint are waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d at 567. Thus, Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint supersedes the Original Complaint he filed back in August 2009.1

 

Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action in his First Amended Complaint, which are

essentially the same as the eight causes of action alleged in the Original Complaint. Plaintiff,

however, presents additional allegations against two of the defendants, Robert Cordero and

Keith Acosta, who were dismissed in the prior screening order. The claims against the two

defendants who were directed to answer the Original Complaint, Karl Stansel and Niles

Behrens, are essentially the same, with one exception.

a. Claims Against Stansel and Behrens

In the prior screening order, the Court determined that in Counts I, II, V and VI,

Plaintiff adequately stated a claim for violation of his religious rights under the First

Amendment against Defendants Stansel and Behrens. Because the same counts in the First

Amended Complaint contain essentially the same allegations against Stansel and Behrens,

the Court will again order them to answer these counts.

With respect to Counts III, IV, VII and VIII, the Court previously found that Plaintiff

adequately stated a claim for violation of his equal protection rights against Stansel and

Behrens. In the First Amended Complaint, however, Count III contains no allegation against

Defendant Stansel. Otherwise, the allegations in Counts III, IV, VII and VIII are essentially

the same as in the Original Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will order Defendant Behrens

to answer the allegations in Counts III, IV, VII and VII, and order Defendant Stansel to

answer the allegations in Counts IV, VII and VII.

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

b. Claims Against Cordero and Acosta

As in the Original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that

Cordero and Acosta, his assigned Deportation Officers, failed to take any action when he

sought their “assistance in securing [his] religious rights.” He contends that when he

contacted them after Defendants Stansel and Behrens denied his right to freely exercise his

religion and his right to equal protection, they did nothing. In the prior screening order, the

Court dismissed Defendants Cordero and Acosta because Plaintiff failed to allege facts

showing that either Cordero or Acosta had a duty or the authority to intercede in resolving

the alleged denial of Plaintiff’s religious rights by prison staff.

Unlike the Original Complaint, Plaintiff now alleges Cordero and Acosta, both

employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), had a duty to immediately

report any allegations of misconduct to their supervisor or a higher level ICE official. Doc.

#8 at 3-A. Additionally, he alleges that under the National Detention Standards maintained

by ICE, a detainee may approach ICE directly with any allegations against the facility staff.

Thus, Plaintiff alleges that Cordero and Acosta had a duty to report to higher level ICE

officials the failure of Stansel and Behrens, employees of Corrections Corporation of

America (“CCA”), to accommodate his religious beliefs.

The Court therefore finds that, based on Plaintiff’s additional allegations against

Cordero and Acosta, he has stated claims against them for violating his First Amendment

right to freely exercise his religion and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

Accordingly, the Court will order Defendant Cordero to answer Counts I through VIII and

order Defendant Acosta to answer Counts I, II and IV through VIII (Count III contains no

allegation against Acosta). 

3. Warning of Possible Dismissal.

Plaintiff should take note that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order, this action may be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with

any order of the Court).

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 6
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 2

 Because Defendants Behrens and Stansel were already served with the Original

Complaint and are represented by counsel, Plaintiff shall serve his First Amended Complaint

- 4 -

4. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

5. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if appearance has been entered, a copy of

every document he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must included a certificate stating

that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff must submit an

additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv. 5.4. Failure to comply may

result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

6. No Further Amendments Without Leave of Court

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend his

pleading "once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served...."

Because Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, he may not file another amended

complaint without first seeking leave from the Court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint (Doc. #12) is denied as

moot;

(2) That Defendants Behrens and Cordero must answer Plaintiff’s claims in Counts

I through VIII of the First Amended Complaint;

(3) That Defendants Stansel and Acosta must answer Plaintiff’s claims in Counts I,

II, and IV through VIII of the First Amended Complaint;

(4) That the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including the First

Amended Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Cordero and Acosta2

;

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 6
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 on them pursuant to Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by sending a copy to

their attorney, along with a copy of this Order.

- 5 -

(5) That Plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 20 days of the date this order is filed. The United State Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order;

(6) That if Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the summons and First Amended Complaint on Defendants Cordero and

Acosta within 120 days of the filing of the First Amended Complaint or within 60 days of

the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(I);

(7) That the United States Marshal shall retain the summons, a copy of the First

Amended Complaint and a copy of this Order for future use;

(8) That the United States Marshal shall notify Defendants Cordero and Acosta of the

commencement of this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule

4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants shall include a copy

of this Order. The Marshall shall file waivers of service of the summons or requests for

waivers that were returned as undeliverable as soon as they are received. If a waiver of

service of summons is not returned by Defendant within 30 days from the date the request

for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the Marshal shall:

(a) Personally serve copies of the summons, First Amended Complaint and this

Order upon Defendants Cordero and Acosta pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure;

(b) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendants Cordero and Acosta, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a

waiver of service of the summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting

service upon Defendants. The costs of service shall be enumerated on the return of

service form (USM-285) and shall include the costs incurred by the Marshal for

photocopying additional copies of the summons, First Amended Complaint, or this

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Order and for preparing new process receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required.

Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served Defendant pursuant to

Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the

Court;

(9) That a Defendant who agrees to waive service of the summons and First

Amended Complaint shall return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff;

(10) That Defendants Behrens, Stansel, Cordero and Acosta shall answer the First

Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided

by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

(11) That any answer or responsive pleading shall state the specific Defendant(s) by

name on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike an answer or responsive pleading that

does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf it is filed;

(12) That this matter is again referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss pursuant

to Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

Dated this 8th day of April , 2010 .

 

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 6 of 6