Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02845/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02845-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

David Anthony Stokes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2845-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

On December 19, 2006, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff leave to amend

his complaint. Dkt. #28. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.

Dkt. #29. Defendant Arpaio has filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. #38. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion.

I. Background.

Plaintiff is a prisoner currently confined at the Arizona State Prison in Florence,

Arizona. Beginning in May 2004, Plaintiff was detained on various criminal charges at a

Maricopa County jail known as “Towers Jail.” Plaintiff commenced this suit on December 9,

2004 by filing a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Towers Jail, the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. Dkt. #1. The complaint

alleges violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights based on overcrowded and

unsanitary conditions at Towers Jail and a denial of Plaintiff’s medically necessary diet. Id.

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 42 Filed 03/28/07 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

The Board members are Fulton Brock, Don Stapely, Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson,

and Mary Rose Garrido-Wilcox. Dkt. #24 ¶ 2.

2

The Court noted that this ruling was not prejudicial to Plaintiff because the

“deliberate indifference” standard applies to his claims whether they are brought under the

Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 3 n.2 (citations omitted).

- 2 -

On October 14, 2005, the Court ordered Sheriff Arpaio to answer the complaint.

The Court dismissed Towers Jail and the MCSO because they are non-jural entities. Dkt. #4.

On September 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint pursuant to

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff sought to add claims

under the Fourteenth Amendment and to add as defendants the members of the Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors. See Dkt. #24.1

 Plaintiff asserted in his motion that he was

seeking to amend the complaint in good faith and that Defendant Arpaio would not be

prejudiced by the amendment. Dkt. #22 at 2-3. Defendant Arpaio did not oppose the

motion.

In its December 19 order, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to

add Fourteenth Amendment claims because the addition of the claims would have been futile.

Dkt. #28 at 2-3.2

 With respect to the proposed Eighth Amendment claims against the Board

members, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state § 1983

claims against the Board members in their official capacities. Id. at 3-4. The Court,

however, denied Plaintiff leave to amend to add the Board members as defendants on the

ground that Plaintiff had delayed unduly in seeking to amend the complaint. Id. at 5.

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider this ruling. Dkt. #29.

II. Analysis.

 This Circuit has made clear that “‘undue delay by itself is insufficient to justify

denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708,

712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 757, 758 (9th Cir. 1999)); see

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1983) (same). “‘Only where

prejudice is shown or the movant acts in bad faith are courts protecting the judicial system

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 42 Filed 03/28/07 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 -

or other litigants when they deny leave to amend a pleading.’” United States v. Webb, 655

F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir.

1973)); see Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a).’”) (citation omitted).

A. Prejudice.

Defendant Arpaio contends that he will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is granted leave to

amend because Plaintiff has included new facts in the amended complaint and the deadline

for deposing Plaintiff has passed. Dkt. #38 at 4. Defendant further contends that he will be

prejudiced if the discovery deadline is extended because it will cause undue delay in getting

this matter resolved. Id.

 Defendant does not identify the new facts alleged in the amended complaint or assert

that they are material to the claims against him, stating only that he “may or may not want

to depose Plaintiff on [the] new facts[.]” Id. Nor does Defendant explain why the delay

caused by allowing Plaintiff to add the Board members as defendants would be prejudicial

to Defendant. Defendant himself has recently sought a three-month extension of certain

pretrial deadlines, arguing in part that an extension of the deadlines would not unduly delay

the case or prejudice the parties. See Dkt. #32.

“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD

Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. In this case, Defendant Arpaio merely asserts, in conclusory

fashion, that he would be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. The Court concludes that

Defendant has not demonstrated prejudice sufficient to deny Plaintiff leave to amend.

B. Bad Faith.

Defendant relies on Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. United States, 233 F.R.D. 532

(D. Ariz. 2005), for the proposition that a plaintiff acts in bad faith when he seeks to amend

his complaint after depositions have been completed without discovering any new facts.

Dkt. #38 at 4. Defendant argues that Plaintiff in this case, like the plaintiff in Aloe Vera, has

acted in bad faith because he filed his motion to amend the complaint on the deadline for

completing depositions without gathering any new evidence during discovery that would

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 42 Filed 03/28/07 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

- 4 -

justify adding the Board members as defendants. Id. at 5.

The Court cannot conclude on the record before it that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith

in seeking to amend the complaint in September 2006. Plaintiff’s motion to amend was filed

within the period of time set forth in the Rule 16 scheduling order. See Dkt. #17 ¶ 3.

Plaintiff has not previously filed or sought leave to file an amended complaint. See DCD

Programs, 833 F.2d at 186 n.3 (stating that whether the plaintiff has previously amended his

complaint is another factor courts may consider in ruling on a motion to amend). Plaintiff

has filed a declaration explaining that as an incarcerated pro se litigant, it was difficult for

him to determine that he could assert a § 1983 claim against the Board members under the

theory of municipal liability. Dkt. #29, Ex. B ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff states that he immediately

sought leave to amend once he learned of the existence of the additional claims. Id. ¶ 7.

Defendant’s reliance on Aloe Vera is misplaced. In Aloe Vera, the plaintiffs sought

to add a new claim against the defendant after the case had been pending for almost five

years despite the fact that the plaintiffs were aware of the facts supporting the claim from the

beginning of the case. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs had acted in bad faith

because they sought to gain an unfair litigation advantage by waiting to amend their

complaint until after they had taken the depositions of the defendants’ witnesses. Aloe Vera,

233 F.R.D. at 535-36. There is no evidence in this case that Plaintiff’s has sought to add the

Board members as defendants in order to gain an unfair litigation advantage with respect to

Defendant Arpaio.

C. Conclusion.

Consistent with the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15, the Court will grant Plaintiff

leave to amend the complaint to add as defendants the members of the Maricopa County

Board of Supervisors. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“Rule 15(a) declares

that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’; this mandate is to be

heeded.”); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (“‘[A] court must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 – to facilitate decision on the merits rather than

on the pleadings or technicalities. . . . Thus, ‘Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 42 Filed 03/28/07 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

- 5 -

pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.’”) (citations omitted); DCD Programs,

833 F.2d at 186 (“[T]he liberality in granting leave to amend is not dependent on whether the

amendment will add causes of action or parties.”). The Court will vacate section II.B of its

December 19, 2006 order and direct the Clerk to file the lodged proposed amended

complaint. See Dkt. ##24, 28 at 3-5. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment claims for the reasons set forth in section II.A of the Court’s December 19 order.

See Dkt. ##24 ¶¶ 31-34, 28 at 2-3.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #29) is granted.

2. Section II.B of the Court’s December 19, 2006 order (Dkt. #28) is vacated.

3. The Clerk shall file the lodged proposed amended complaint (Dkt. #24).

4. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed.

5. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff service packets, including copies of the amended

complaint and this order and both summonses and request for waiver forms, for Defendants

Fulton Brock, Don Stapely, Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson, and Mary Rose Garrido-Wilcox.

6. Plaintiff shall complete and return the service packets to the Clerk within 20

days of the date of filing of this order. The United States Marshal will not provide service

of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

7. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the summons and complaint on each Defendant within 120 days of the

filing of the amended complaint, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not

served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 

8. The United States Marshal shall retain the summonses, a copy of the amended

complaint, and a copy of this order for future use.

9 The United States Marshal shall notify Defendants 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

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 42 Filed 03/28/07 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 -

Marshal shall file waivers of service of the summonses 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 a Defendant within thirty days from the date the request for waiver was

sent by the Marshal, the Marshal shall:

a. Personally serve a copy of the summons, amended complaint, and this

order upon the Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; and

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

for the Defendant, 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 the

Defendant. 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, amended complaint, or this 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) and (5) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

10. A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the summons and amended

complaint shall return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not Plaintiff.

11. Defendants shall answer the amended complaint or otherwise respond by

appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey for further proceedings.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 42 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 6