Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00374/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00374-5/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allan S. MacDonald,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-0374-PHX-SMM (VAM)

No. CV 03-1584-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Allan S. MacDonald seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order granting in

part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #240) and to strike Defendants’

response to his motion (Doc. #244). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions.

I. Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ response to his Motion for

Reconsideration, arguing that the rules do not provide for a response to his motion (Doc.

#244). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions (Id.). Plaintiff’s request will be denied. The Court will

consider the response to the extent it is appropriate under the federal rules.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff argued that (1) his state tort claim against Defendant Nurses Donald J.

Chaffee, Christine Malta, Pamela Brooks, Pinkey Smith are not claims of malpractice but of

negligence and gross negligence, (2) by not allowing him to file an amended response to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, he was prevented from properly defending

against summary judgment, (3) Defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and

Case 2:03-cv-00374-SMM-VAM Document 247 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

individual Board members were improperly screened out due to the Court’s belief that the

sheriff was responsible for health care, and (4) the Court improperly dismissed Plaintiff’s

state tort claims, finding that medical malpractice did not violate his constitutional rights

(Id.).

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff

has not alleged that there has been an intervening change in law, merely that this Court erred

in its decision and he was prevented from presenting evidence.

First, Plaintiff argues that his claim against Defendants Chaffee, Malta, Brooks, and

Smith requires only that he show they were negligent, not that negligence was the proximate

cause of his injury (Doc. #240). However, as in all negligence actions, Plaintiff must

establish that Defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the injury he suffered. See

Hamblin v. Arizona, 143 P.3d 388, 390 (Ariz. App. 2006) (in order to maintain a negligence

action, a tort plaintiff must prove duty, breach of duty, actual cause, proximate cause, and

damages). Moreover, as this Court previously found, to demonstrate that Defendants’ actions

were the proximate cause of his injuries, Plaintiff must present expert testimony, which he

failed to do. See Badia v. City of Casa Grande, 988 P.2d 134, 142 (Ariz.App. 1999) (“Sheer

speculation is insufficient to establish the necessary element of proximate cause or to defeat

summary judgment.”).

Second, Plaintiff contends he has additional evidence which this Court prevented him

from presenting (Doc. #240) when it denied his request to file an amended response to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. However, Plaintiff has not specified what the

evidence would demonstrate, and Plaintiff’s action has been pending for more than three

years. Plaintiff has had sufficient opportunity to present all evidence in his possession.

Third, Plaintiff argues that the Court improperly screened out Defendants Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors and individual Board members, as well as his state law tort

Case 2:03-cv-00374-SMM-VAM Document 247 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

claims (Doc. #240). Initially, any challenge to this Court’s screening order is untimely.

However, even considering the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments, he is not entitled to

reconsideration. As found in the Order granting summary judgment, although Plaintiff

demonstrated the existence of a material question of fact was to whether six Defendants

deliberately disregarded his medical needs, resulting in a delay in treatment, Plaintiff failed

to establish that such Defendants informed anyone of their actions, or acted as the result of

a policy, practice or custom. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors or individual Board members violated his constitutional rights.

See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 n. 55 (1978),

(providing that “[m]unicipalities cannot be held liable under a traditional respondeat superior

theory); Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing

that for a person to liable in his official capacity, Plaintiff must allege that he acted as a result

of a policy, practice, or custom). In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence cannot

proceed as part of a claim that, in violation of his Eighth Amendment right, Defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.

In sum, Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that this

Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or established the

existence of an intervening change in controlling law which would bring this Court’s order

into question. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Strike (Doc. #244). All other matters in this action will remain with the Magistrate Judge for

disposition as appropriate.

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:03-cv-00374-SMM-VAM Document 247 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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 -

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #240) and Motion to Strike (Doc.

#244) are denied.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00374-SMM-VAM Document 247 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 4