Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00460/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00460-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Roy Warden, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Bob Walkup, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-460-TUC-DCB (BPV) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

Plaintiff Roy Warden (“Warden”) filed this action on July 29, 2011, and filed an 

amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on November 22, 2011 (Doc. 6). 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 120) 

and Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Substitution of Parties (Doc. 117). For 

the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 120), and dismiss this action in its entirety. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The one claim that remains following the Court’s order dismissing several counts 

and defendants from the Amended Complaint (see Docs. 49, 62, 102) alleges that an 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

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 

unidentified Tucson Police Department (TPD) officer threatened Plaintiff with arrest if he 

did not move more than 1,000 feet away from Armory Park on May 1, 2010. Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 6) Count One, at ¶ 118 (C). 

 Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the Amended Complaint on the basis of 

Defendants’ Initial Disclosure, and a DVD from May 1, 2010, in the possession of 

Plaintiff, which he alleged was misplaced. See (Doc. 118). Plaintiff has lodged a 

proposed Second Amended Complaint that appears to comply with Local Rule (LRCiv) 

15.1(a) (proposed amended pleading “must indicate in what respect it differs from the 

pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and 

underlining the text to be added.”). (Doc. 119). 

Defendants object to the motion for leave to amend for failure to comply with 

Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and because the allegation of new claims and 

additional defendants does not meet the requirements of Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and plain 

statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach allegation 

must be simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause 

of action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain 

statement of the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling v. 

Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 

F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 9
- 3 - 

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 

requires a plaintiff to state claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as 

practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Moreover, “[i]f doing 

so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . 

must be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

The undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”) (Doc. 119) and concludes that it fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s complaint is not simple and concise, it is 

dense and verbose, with so many factual averments of such specificity, re-alleged in 

every count, that it is impossible to discern which facts support, or are even relevant to, 

which claims. Plaintiff’s proposed SAC is 37 pages long, with over 100 paragraphs of 

largely irrelevant “facts and allegations” re-alleged in each and every count as the basis 

for that count, with each count raising multiple claims against multiple defendants. This 

places the onus on the Court to decipher which, if any, facts support which claims, as 

well as to determine whether a plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. Haynes v. 

Anderson & Strudwick, Inc., 508 F.Supp. 1303 (D.C.Va. 1981); see also, Pliler v. Ford, 

542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or 

paralegal to pro se litigants” because this would undermine district judges’ role as 

impartial decisionmakers.). Additionally, the SAC is burdened with legal argument, 

citation to case-law, and conclusory factual averments based on unrelated legal litigation. 

The Court cannot meaningfully review the SAC. Accordingly, the undersigned 

recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 9
- 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 

amended complaint. Additionally, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s pro se status, the 

undersigned recommends that the District Court order than any further such filings can 

only be viewed as intended to vex and harass and will result in dismissal with prejudice. 

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 (1960); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th

Cir. 1973). In seeking to amend the complaint, however, Plaintiff has not presented an 

appropriate basis for the Court to conclude that amendment is appropriate. See generally 

Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[f]ive factors are 

frequently used to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) 

undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) 

whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint”). Although pro se pleadings are 

liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and 

vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents of the 

University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation 

of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not 

initially pleaded. Id. 

Here, upon consideration of the above factors, the undersigned finds that leave to 

amend should be denied. Two significant factors weigh against granting leave to amend. 

First, after more than three years narrowing the relevant justiciable issue in this case from 

allegations that are untimely, precluded, or failed to state a claim, the case is now ready 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

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 

to proceed with discovery. This action is over three years old. Granting leave to file 

another amended complaint would essentially start the case over, at least with respect to 

those defendants Plaintiff seeks to add in his proposed Second Amended Complaint, 

would add more delay and expense in reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and is 

inconsistent with Rule 1, Fed.R.Civ.P., (“These rules . . . shall be construed and 

administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”). 

Additionally, the undersigned finds that the undue delay is attributable to Plaintiff. The 

only reason Plaintiff cites for the delay in seeking leave to amend1

 is that he misplaced a 

DVD for over three years. See e.g., Segal v. Rogue Pictures, 544 Fed.Appx. 769, 770 (9th

Cir. 2013)(undue delay attributable to Plaintiff whose only provided reasons for the delay 

was that he had lost the evidence in support of his claim among his own possessions and 

had only recently located it)(citing AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 

F.3d 946, 953-954 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Second, the Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed amendments would be futile because 

they allege claims against ten additional defendants, but do not comply with Rule 

15(c)(3) for all of the reasons stated in Defendants’ response to the motion to amend. 

 

1

 Plaintiff also refers to the submission of initial disclosures by Defendants in his motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff states that these initial disclosures “revealed the 

identifies of several civilians and a number of Tucson Officials and TPD personnel who planned and executed the intentional violation of Plaintiff’s rights on May 1, 2010.” This, however, is not a valid justification for undue delay. Unknown defendants may be included in a complaint in certain circumstances such as when the identity of the alleged defendants is not known prior to the filing of the complaint, but may be identified through discovery. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642-43 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff 

should have alleged his claims in a previous complaint when the nature of the claims was 

known to him even if the identity of the defendant could not have been determined absent 

disclosure. Plaintiff has demonstrated he is more than fully capable of filing a claim against unnamed defendants. 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 5 of 9
- 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 

Most significantly, the allegations against these individuals do not relate back to conduct, 

transactions, or occurrences set forth in the original pleadings. The Defendants named in 

Count One, Two, and Four of the proposed Second Amended Complaint lacked notice, 

there was no way they could have known that they would be a party to this lawsuit 

because the allegations are completely new and do not relate back to the original or first 

amended complaint. Plaintiff cannot show the new defendants “knew or should have 

known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action 

would have been brought against the party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3)(C). In addition, an 

amendment to the new proposed allegations in Count One, Two, and Four (Doc. 119) 

would be futile because the statute of limitations has run against these defendants. The 

statute of limitations for an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 in Arizona is two 

years. Two Rivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 1999); Madden-Tyler v. 

Maricopa County, 189 Ariz. 462, 466, 943 P.2d 822, 826 (App. 1997). 

With regards to the only remaining allegation in this case, found at paragraph 

118(C) of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), Plaintiff proposes to amend the complaint to 

change the party sued naming Defendants Azuelo, Wooldridge, and Johnson (Doc. 119, ¶ 

146(A) and (B)) for the “unidentified Defendant TPD officer” named in Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint (Doc. 6 ¶ 118(C)) as follows: 

Count 1, Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants violated Plaintiff’s 

rights under the First Amendment as set forth below: 

* * * 

C. The unidentified Defendant TPD officer who, on May 1, 2010, 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 6 of 9
- 7 - 

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 

threatened Plaintiff with arrest if Plaintiff did not move more than 1,000 ft. 

away from Armory Park... (Doc. 6 ¶118(C)). 

As noted above, Plaintiff was in possession of the information that revealed the 

name of the “unidentified” TPD officer, but due to his lack of diligence he listed the 

defendant as “the unidentified TPD officer.” Plaintiff’s statements regarding the 

identification of the “unidentified TPD officer” are inconsistent and misleading. Plaintiff 

has previously stated that he “did not have access to a DVD of events which occurred in 

Armory Park on May 1, 2010 when he filed his Complaint for damages in this action.” 

See Doc. 112, ¶ 6. This assertion is disingenuous at best as the DVD was admittedly in 

Plaintiff’s possession. Moreover, even if the DVD would not have provided Plaintiff with 

the unidentified officer’s name without comparing it to the names listed on the “Special 

Operations Plan May 1st Coalition March & Rally”, this document was submitted by 

Defendants on June 6, 2013, as an exhibit submitted in support of Defendant Robinson’s 

motion for summary judgment. See (Doc. 83, Ex. 2). Plaintiff does not explain why he 

waited nearly ten months to move to amend the complaint to identify the unnamed TPD 

officer, or to make a notification of substitution. Further misleading is Plaintiff’s attempt 

to amend the claim through notice of substitution by substituting three named officers for 

the single unidentified TPD officer in the remaining claim. See (Doc. 6, ¶¶ 86, 118 (C)). 

The Amended Complaint clearly identifies actions taken by a single TPD officer. (Id.) 

Three parties cannot be substituted in place of a single unnamed defendant without 

further amendment of the complaint. 

Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

that the District Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. 

Rule 15(a) does not require the Court to grant a party leave to amend where the 

party has not been diligent. For example, where the party seeking amendment knows or 

should know of the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to 

include them in the original complaint, the motion to amend may be denied. Jordan v. 

County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1325 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other 

grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982) (citations omitted). Because any further attempt to amend 

the complaint to add additional defendants or substitute parties would be not be allowed 

under Rule 15(a), and because there are no other claims in the Amended Complaint for 

Petitioner to litigate, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss 

this action in its entirety. 

II. RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend (Doc. 118) and FURTHER RECOMMENDS that the District Court 

dismiss this action in its entirety. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections 

within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. 

A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No reply to any response shall be filed. See id.

 If objections are filed the parties should use the following case number: CV 11-

0460-TUC-DCB. If objections are not timely filed, then the parties’ rights to de novo 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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 

review by the District Court may be deemed waived. 

 Dated this 5th day of May, 2014. 

 

Case 4:11-cv-00460-DCB-BPV Document 123 Filed 05/05/14 Page 9 of 9