Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01001/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01001-7/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 Vinluan, Bevins, Pratt, Schriro, Kanter, Kendall, Macabuhay, Rowe,

Tee, Lockhart, Maderazo, Sloan, Jones, Baird, Stapler, Clausen, and Chaney.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allan S. MacDonald,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-04-1001-PHX-SMM (MHB)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’1

 Motion for Clarification of Court’s Order (Dkt. 177).

Defendants seek clarification of the Order filed December 14, 2007 (Dkt. 160).

BACKGROUND

On July 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a Third Amended

Complaint (“TAC”) which amended and supplemented the Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”). (Dkt. 97.) The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and

supplement the SAC on the grounds that the proposed amendment was futile and

the proposed supplement was more properly the subject of another lawsuit. (Dkt. 104.)

Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying the motion (Dkt. 105), and the Court withdrew

the reference to the magistrate as to those objections (Dkt. 135).

In the Court’s December 14, 2007 Order, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

Case 2:04-cv-01001-SMM Document 194 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 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

2

 Defendant’s motion then lists allegations made in the following paragraphs of the

TAC: page 4, ¶ 4; page 4-4(a), ¶ 6; page 4(a), ¶ 7; page 4(f), ¶ 44; page 4(f), ¶ 45; and page

4(g), ¶ 48.

- 2 -

and supplement the SAC was granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 160.) The

Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and supplement the SAC to

assert tort claims against the State of Arizona, claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and claims which accrued after Plaintiff’s transfer to the Tucson

Complex. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the SAC was granted to

include certain additional defendants. (Id.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants now seek clarification “regarding . . . claims that were raised for the first

time in the TAC but which were not addressed by the December 14, 2007 Order.”2

 (Dkt.

177, Defs.’ Mot. at 2-4.) The Court clarifies its Order as follows.

The lodged TAC alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment and the ADA. (Dkt.

98, TAC at 4.) The SAC included a claim for violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

right against deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (See Dkt. 18 at 4.) After screening

the SAC, the Court found that it sufficiently alleged an Eight Amendment claim. (Dkt. 19,

Order dated Jan. 31, 2006, at 4.) Therefore the Eighth Amendment claim was already before

the Court when Plaintiff sought leave to file the TAC. The TAC included claims for

violation of the ADA, and claims which accrued after his transfer to the Tucson Complex.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint to include the ADA and Tucson claims was

denied. (Dkt. 160, Order dated Dec. 14, 2007, at 4-5, 6.)

The paragraphs at issue are not “claims” but rather allegations. To the extent the

allegations relate to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim and concern the Alhambra, Eyman,

or Lewis Complexes, the allegations amend his previously-screened Eighth Amendment

claim and are part of the TAC. To the extent the allegations relate to ADA claims or concern

Case 2:04-cv-01001-SMM Document 194 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

the Tucson Complex, the allegations are not part of the TAC per the Court’s Order dated

December 14, 2007.

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of Court’s Order,

and clarifying the Order dated December 14, 2007 as stated above.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-01001-SMM Document 194 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 3