Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01198/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01198-0/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 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alex Aguilar,

Plaintiff

-vsLewis, et al.,

Defendants

CV-09-1198-PHX-NVW (JRI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

re Screening of Amended Complaint

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

This matter arises out of a complaint by Plaintiff, a California prisoner presently

incarcerated in the La Palma Correctional Center, a privately operated contract prison located

in Eloy, Arizona, alleging a denial of emergency medical care while a prisoner. 

Plaintiff has filed a “First Amended Complaint” (#12) prior to service of an answer

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Court is required to screen that complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Judge, and the

determination of the undersigned is dispositive of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the

undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation

pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §28(b)(1)(B) and

(C). 

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Original Complaint

 Plaintiff's original Complaint was filed June 3, 2009 (#1). That Complaint alleged

two counts for constitutionally inadequate medical care and retaliation arising out of a

Case 2:09-cv-01198-NVW Document 13 Filed 09/10/09 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 -

incident on April 15, 2009 in which Plaintiff’s leg was broken, and the ensuing events.

Plaintiff named as defendants Lieutenant Lewis, Warden DeRosa, Registered Nurse Mazzola,

and Secretary Cate. In the initial Screening Order entered July 8, 2009 , the Court found that

Plaintiff failed to state a claim for retaliation, and failed to allege facts to establish a claim

against various defendants. As a result, an answer to the inadequate medical care claim was

required from Defendant Lewis.

B. First Amended Complaint

In response to the initial Screening Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend (#9) and

lodged a proposed First Amended Complaint. The undersigned granted (#11) the motion to

amend as a first amendment of right, but noted that the amended pleading failed to allege any

facts, but instead referenced a non-existent attachment. The First Amended Complaint (#12)

was filed. However, Plaintiff was advised that a recommendation of dismissal for failure to

state a claim was likely, and screening and service stayed for twenty days to permit Plaintiff

an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff has not moved to amend, and the twenty days expired

August 20, 2009.

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires the Court to screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 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. Id.

42 U.S.C. § 1997 applies the same standard to such complaints even if the defendants are

not governmental entities, or officers or employees of a governmental entity. Id.

In screening complaints, however, the Court is obliged to liberally construe the

Plaintiff’s complaint:

The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. . . . [A]

Case 2:09-cv-01198-NVW Document 13 Filed 09/10/09 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 -

pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can

only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears " 'beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.' " 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972)).

To state a claim under §1983, a plaintiff must allege supporting facts that (1) the

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989); see Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074

(9th Cir. 2001).

Here, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts a single claim for denial of medical

care, but fails to allege any “Supporting Facts” but instead includes the reference “See

Attachment in Back.” No attachment was filed. The only facts alleged are in the “Injury”

portion of the form complaint, and simply allege a denial by “Defendants” of emergency

medical treatment. Plaintiff again names Defendants Lewis, DeRosa, Mazzola and Cate, but

makes no allegation of any specific conduct by any of them and makes no connection

between any of them and the injury he sustained. A plaintiff must allege that he suffered a

specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423

U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that

show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren

v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff’s sole count fails to state a claim against any defendant. Accordingly,

dismissal of the entire complaint is appropriate. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, that

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (#12) be dismissed, without prejudice.

Case 2:09-cv-01198-NVW Document 13 Filed 09/10/09 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 -

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be given 20 days to file a motion

to amend and lodge a proposed second amended complaint, and that if Plaintiff fails to do

so, that the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice

and without further notice to Plaintiff.

V. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, 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. Failure to timely file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de

novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED: September 9, 2009 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\09-1198-012r RR 09 09 08 re Screen Amend Compl.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-01198-NVW Document 13 Filed 09/10/09 Page 4 of 4