Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336-2/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

1 Defendants’ motion to dismiss at Docket No. 172 is not yet fully

pled. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PATRICK NEAL BRADBERRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-01336 PHX JAT MEA

)

DORA SCHRIRO, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on referral

from the District Judge, and the determination of the Magistrate

Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is, inter alia, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his

Second Amended Complaint at Docket No. 166.1

Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 on May 5, 2005, alleging the original Defendants were

liable to him for violation of his constitutional rights while

incarcerated. Plaintiff alleged twelve claims for relief

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 1 of 10
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-

against 54 named Defendants. Plaintiff alleged claims based on

violation of his right to procedural due process, Defendants’

deliberate indifference, lack of access to the prison grievance

procedure, threats to Plaintiff’s safety, conditions of

confinement claims, and property claims. The complaint was

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim because

Plaintiff did not set forth specific factual allegations and

specific dates that each of the alleged incidents took place. 

After three extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on November 20, 2006, naming 54 defendants,

including Dora Schriro and Dr. Belcourt. Plaintiff alleged

seven claims for relief, based on his “First Amendment right to

redress,” deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,

occurring in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006, threats to his safety

arising from events occurring in 2001 and Defendant Schriro’s

inaction in 2003, a state-law based claim for violation of his

right to due process, a due process claim based on the

deprivation of property, a conditions of confinement claim

regarding events in 2003 and 2004, and a procedural due process

claim regarding the processing of his grievances. Plaintiff

sought compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive and

declaratory relief. 

Plaintiff immediately sought to “supplement” the

complaint and for leave to file a second amended complaint. On

March 12, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file any proposed

amended complaint on a court-approved form within 30 days, i.e.,

almost two years after filing his original complaint, and

ordered that the matter be dismissed pursuant to section 1915(g)

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 2 of 10
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-

if Plaintiff failed to comply with that order.

On April 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

naming 53 defendants and stating eight claims for relief,

including claims arising from events occurring in 2007. 

On May 8, 2007, the Court ordered the matter dismissed

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court noted:

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff

has again failed to comply with the Court's

orders. Plaintiff has violated the Court's

directive that he must comply with the 15

page limitation for filing a complaint

(Doc.#19). Moreover, Plaintiff has again set

forth conclusory allegations in his requests

for relief and he has not alleged specific

facts to establish how each of the named

Defendants played an affirmative role in the

alleged constitutional violations.

The Court further noted it was required to:

consider the rights and entitlements of

Defendants to finality, fairness, due process

of law and the prompt resolution of

litigation. That time has come in this

litigation. This case is over two years old

and many of Plaintiff’s claims took place

beginning in the year 2000. It is prejudicial

to the Defendants to expect them to defend

claims which are this old, when evidence may

be difficult if not impossible to obtain. Plaintiff appealed the decision dismissing his claims

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed and

remanded on January 23, 2008. Accordingly, on January 29, 2008,

the Court ordered Defendants be served with and answer the

Second Amended Complaint. 

The Second Amended Complaint named 53 defendants. The

Second Amended Complaint states causes of action for violations

of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 3 of 10
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-

punishment in relation to Plaintiff’s medical care while

incarcerated (Count One) and threats to his safety stemming from

his cooperation with ADOC CIU investigators (Count Two).

Plaintiff also contests his placement, pursuant to a “‘specific

policy’ especially for [Plaintiff],” in the prison’s Special

Management Unit for 10 years (Count Three). In Count Four, he

asserts violations of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

rights because some Defendants have retaliated against him for

filing complaints regarding prison conditions and staff abuses.

In Counts Five and Six, Plaintiff alleges violations of

his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights because some

Defendants charge him a co-payment for medical visits

notwithstanding his contention that the state statute

authorizing the co-payment cannot be applied retroactively to

him. In Count Seven, Plaintiff claims a violation of his First

Amendment right to redress because some Defendants refuse to

process or answer his grievances, delay his grievance appeals,

and deny Plaintiff proper forms to file complaints. In Count

Eight, Plaintiff asserts a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process rights because some Defendants have enacted and are

enforcing a new classification policy that eliminates a

classification hearing to challenge ongoing placements in

maximum or “supermax” security units. In his Request for Relief,

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and

compensatory and punitive damages.

The Court’s order upon remand dismissed Defendants

McHugh, Cione, and Betancourt without prejudice because,

although Plaintiff named them as Defendants, Plaintiff asserted

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 4 of 10
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-

no claims against them and did not mention them in any of the

eight counts.

Extensive problems with effecting service on the

remaining fifty named defendants have ensued since the filing of

the Court’s service order on January 29, 2008. On November 17,

2008, the undersigned granted the then-served Defendants’ third

motion to extend the time allowed to file an answer to the

second amended complaint. Some Defendants filed an answer to

the Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2008.

In the interim, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his

standing complaint on December 16, 2008. See Docket No. 166.

Defendants filed a response to the motion to amend at Docket No.

166 on January 2, 2009, and Plaintiff filed a reply on January

16, 2009. See Docket No. 178 and Docket No. 184.

Analysis

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides

that a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his complaint

when justice so requires. See, e.g., United States v. Hougham,

364 U.S. 310, 316, 81 S. Ct. 13, 17 (1960); Howey v. United

States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). However, leave to

amend should be denied if the Court would eventually have to

dismiss the claim added to the complaint because the plaintiff

raised a claim which was legally frivolous or malicious, failed

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that

sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(c)(1) (2003 & Supp. 2008). See also

Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996) (“While Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a) encourages leave to amend, district courts need

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 5 of 10
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-

not accommodate futile amendments.”).

When the Court has already granted a plaintiff leave to

amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is

“particularly broad.” Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992,

1003 (9th Cir. 2002). When assessing a motion for leave to

amend the Court may consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice

to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the

plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. See, e.g.,

Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004).

“Futility alone can justify the denial of a motion to amend.”

Id.

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add causes of

action arising from events occurring in 2008, after his second

amended complaint was filed and more than two years after his

original complaint. Pursuant to Rule 15(d), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, the Court may allow Plaintiff “to serve a

supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences

or events which have happened since the date of the pleading

sought to be supplemented.” However, although leave to permit

a supplemental pleading is favored, a supplemental pleading may

not be used to introduce a “separate, distinct and new cause of

action.” Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F. 3d

400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff essentially seeks to litigate many events

which have occurred since the filing of his original complaint,

since the filing of the second amended complaint, and since the

remand of the matter from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court’s discretion should not be exercised to allow

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 6 of 10
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 An amended complaint may not incorporate any part of an

original complaint by reference and supercedes an original complaint.

See Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 76 (2d Cir. 2000); Campbell v.

Towse, 99 F.3d 820, 825 (7th Cir. 1996).

-7-

Plaintiff to use an action originally filed in 2005 to address

relatively recent events allegedly giving rise to separate and

distinct new cause of action.

Plaintiff also seeks to amend his Second Amended

Complaint to add claims when the factual basis for the amendment

was known to Plaintiff prior to filing his Second Amended

Complaint. For example, Plaintiff seeks leave to add Dr. Baird

as a defendant. Dr. Baird was named as a defendant in the

original complaint, filed in 2005, and not named as a defendant

in either Plaintiff’s first amended complaint or in the Second

Amended Complaint.2 Plaintiff should not be permitted to cause

undue delay by adding this defendant at this time when he

clearly had the knowledge of the factual events giving rise to

his claims and the opportunity to include Dr. Baird in his

earlier pleadings. See Chodos, 292 F.3d at 1003. 

Additionally, in Count I of the proposed third amended

complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Stapler now

include a claim regarding the doctor’s treatment of him in 2003,

a claim clearly known to Plaintiff at the time he filed his

prior complaints and arguably time-barred at the time Plaintiff

filed his original complaint. Furthermore, the allegations

against Defendant Belcourt in the proposed third amended

complaint include an additional claim that this defendant failed

to adequately treat Plaintiff from July to October 2006, a

factual predicate for a claim clearly known to Plaintiff when he

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 7 of 10
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

-8-

filed his Second Amended Complaint in 2007.

Plaintiff also seeks to add former ADC Division

Director of Offender Operations Samuel Sublett, and the current

ADC Division Director of Offender Operations, John Hallahan, to

Counts VII, VIII, IX, and X. However, Plaintiff has not alleged

any basis for these individuals’ liability other than respondeat

superior. Plaintiff should not be permitted to add as

defendants Mr. Sublett, Mr. Hallahan, and Dr. Baird, because the

claims set forth against these defendants in the proposed third

amended complaint are based solely on their status as

supervisors. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to amend to include

CO III Sambora in Count I. Ms. Sambora is the Grievance

Coordinator at the SMU I; a position she has held since April

2007. Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant arose after the

filing of the Second Amended Complaint and should not be

addressed to this suit to the prejudice of the other Defendants.

Conclusion

Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his

complaint for a third time more than three years after filing

his original complaint and after receiving numerous extensions

of the time allowed to file a complaint properly stating

actionable claims for relief against defendants who may be sued.

More than a year and a half passed between the filing of the

original complaint and the first amended complaint on November

20, 2006, and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was filed on

April 6, 2007. Accordingly, most events occurring after the

filing of the Second Amended Complaint are not temporally

related to the claims stated in the original complaint.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 8 of 10
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

-9-

After lengthy delays, the incidents giving rise to the

Second Amended Complaint appear to be ready for discovery and

adjudication. Allowing the filing of an amended complaint

naming additional defendants and additional causes of action

predicated on events occurring more than two years after the

filing of the original complaint will prejudice the efficient

execution of justice and unduly prejudice both the current

Defendants and any newly-added defendants. Cf. Jackson v. Bank

of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding the

denial of leave to amend because the plaintiff had delayed

filing the amended complaint for eight months beyond the time

they should have known of the existence of the claims and noting

that “[p]rejudice to the opposing party is the most important

factor” in determining whether to grant leave to amend). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to show good cause for his

inability to achieve the filing of a proper complaint stating

all of his intended causes of action and naming each of his

proposed defendants in the several years that this action has

now been pending. Accordingly,

 IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to amend his

complaint (Docket No. 166) be denied.

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 9 of 10
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

-10-

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver

of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact

and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 6th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 189 Filed 02/09/09 Page 10 of 10