Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00081/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00081-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Douglas Wayne Derello, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00081-PHX-PGR (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 On June 8, 2015, without the Court’s permission or Defendants’ consent, Plaintiff 

filed a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 98.) The Court construed the filing as a motion 

for leave to file a third amended complaint. (Doc. 100.) On July 9, 2015, Defendants 

filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 110.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time 

to do so has passed. 

I. Background 

 On January 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint to initiate this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On May 7, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff in 

forma pauperis status and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11.) 

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Id.) On June 5, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) On October 9, 2013, the Court 

screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (Doc. 16.) 

The Court found that the allegations in Count One stated an Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Charge Nurses Jane Doe One and Jane 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

Doe Two. (Doc. 16 at 5-6.) The Court permitted Plaintiff’s claims against Jane Does 

One and Two to proceed and directed him to provide the name of at least one of the Doe 

Defendants named in Count One within thirty days of that order. (Id. at 6.) The Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s claims asserted in the other counts of the First Amended Complaint. 

(Id.) 

 On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff identified one of the Jane Doe defendants as 

Charge Nurse CSO96. (Doc. 17.) The Court ordered service on Charge Nurse CSO96. 

(Doc. 19.) After service was returned unexecuted, on March 10, 2014, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for permission to conduct discovery related to the identity of Charge 

Nurse CSO96. (Doc. 22.) On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that Charge Nurse 

CS096 was Lillian Mastergeorge and she was served with the First Amended Complaint 

on September 19, 2014. (Docs. 31, 35.) 

 On October 19, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a 

Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 40.) The Court screened the Second Amended 

Complaint. The Court permitted Count One of the Second Amended Complaint to 

proceed because it merely substituted Lillian Mastergeorge and A. Aquino for Jane Does 

One and Two. (Doc. 38 at 10, 12-15; Doc. 40 at 3.) 

 The Court also permitted Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint to 

proceed against Defendants Steinhauser and Balji because Plaintiff sufficiently stated 

Eighth Amendment claims against those defendants. In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendants Steinhauser and Balji interfered with his medical care by denying him 

distilled water to operate a humidifier to treat his sleep apnea. (Doc. 38 at 16-17; Doc. 40 

at 3-4.) 

 Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint also alleged that Defendant John 

or Jane Doe, health director at the Buckeye Jail, maintained policies or procedures that 

caused interference, delay, or denial of Plaintiff’s access to prescribed medical treatment. 

(Doc. 38 at 19-20.) The Court concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim against 

John or Jane Doe in Count Two. (Doc. 40 at 5-6.) The Court directed Plaintiff to 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

provide the identity of John or Jane Doe within sixty days of the date of the October 15, 

2014 Order, and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of his claims again 

the Doe Defendant identified in Count Two. (Doc. 40 at 6.) 

 In Count Three of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also alleged that 

Defendant Mastergeorge violated the First Amendment by failing to process or by 

destroying medical grievances. (Doc. 38 at 21.) The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed 

on Count Three. (Doc. 40 at 5-6.) 

 Defendants Steinhauser, Aquino, Balaji, and Mastergeorge were served and 

answered the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 65.) The Court issued a Scheduling 

Order that set June 4, 2015 as the deadline for joining parties or amending pleadings. 

(Doc. 67.) After conducting discovery, Plaintiff notified that Court that the Doe 

Defendant in Count Two was Jeffrey Alvarez and the Court ordered service on Defendant 

Alvarez. (Doc. 83.) On May 27, 2015, Defendant Alvarez answered the Second 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 92.) 

 In the meantime, on May 5, 2015, Defendant Aquino filed a motion for summary 

judgment on Count One of the Second Amended Complaint based on Plaintiff’s alleged 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies on his claims related to his sleep apnea 

machine. (Doc. 87.) That motion was fully briefed as of July 27, 2015. (Docs. 87, 101, 

111.) There are no other pending dispositive motions in this case and the dispositive 

motion deadline is November 2, 2015. (Doc.67.) 

II. Proposed Third Amended Complaint 

 In the proposed third amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add three defendants, 

Sgt. Young, “H5115, medical director at Lower Buckeye Jail,” and “Becky/Doe CS754,” 

charge nurse at Lower Buckeye Jail (Doc. 98 at 2, 4.) Specifically, he seeks to add 

defendants H5115 and CS754 to Count Two and he seeks to add a new count, Count 

Four, against Defendant Young alleging that he delayed forwarding, or did not process, 

Plaintiff’s grievances related to his medical care. (Doc. 96 at 14-15.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

 Plaintiff filed the proposed third amended complaint, which the Court construed as 

a motion for leave to amend, before the deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order. 

(Doc. 67.) Accordingly, Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs this 

motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citing Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (holding that a party 

seeking to amend a pleading after the scheduling order deadline must first show “good 

cause” for not amending the complaint sooner; and, if there is sufficient “good cause” 

established, the party next must show that the amendment would be proper under Rule 

15)). Because Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint and Defendants oppose 

amendment, he needs the Court’s permission to file a third amended complaint. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

 Although the decision to grant a motion to amend is within the trial court’s 

discretion, “Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

“‘[A] court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 — to facilitate decision 

on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 

1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). The liberal policy in favor of 

amendments, however, is subject to limitations. Whether to grant a motion to amend 

depends on five factors: (1) bad faith, (2) prejudice to the opposing party, (3) futility, 

(4) undue delay, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. 

Western Shoshone Nat. Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). As noted 

above, Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. Accordingly, this factor weighs 

against amendment. The Court considers other four factors below. 

A. Bad Faith, Prejudice, and Undue Delay 

 The first, second, and fourth factors are bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, 

and undue delay. Id. at 204. Under Johnson, the focus of Rule 15(a) is on the bad faith 

of the party seeking to amend, and upon the prejudice to the opposing party. Johnson, 

975 F.2d at 609. The party opposing amendment has the burden of showing prejudice or 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 8
- 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 

bad faith. See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating 

that leave to amend should be freely given unless opposing party makes “an affirmative 

showing of either prejudice or bad faith”). In their response to Plaintiff’s motion, 

Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith or that they would be 

prejudiced by the amendment. (Doc. 110.) Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no 

“bad faith” or “prejudice.” Additionally, Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff unduly 

delayed in filing his motion. Accordingly, the Court does not find undue delay. 

B. Futility of Amendment 

 The third factor is “futility” of the amendment. Johnson, 951 F.2d at 204. A 

district court properly denies leave to amend when “the amendment would be futile . . . or 

would be subject to dismissal.” Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(citations omitted); see also Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 

1988) (“A motion for leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be futile or legally 

insufficient” (citation omitted)). Defendants argue that the proposed amendments would 

be futile. (Doc. 110.) 

 1. Proposed Amendment to Count Two 

 In his proposed third amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add H5115 and 

Becky/Doe CS754 as defendants in Count Two. (Doc. 98.) He alleges that these new 

defendants, along with Defendants Balaji and Steinhauser,were deliberately indifferent to 

his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they denied him 

distilled water for his sleep apnea machine. (Doc. 98 at 8-12.) 

 Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff leave to amend to add these 

defendants because amendment would be futile. Defendants assert that the proposed 

defendants and the existing defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Count Two 

because the defendants adhered to a “CHS policy that distilled water is not provided for 

DPAP machines.” (Doc. 110 at 2.) Accordingly, Defendants argue that Ground Two 

“will be subject to summary judgment and adding additional defendants will be futile.” 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 8
- 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 

(Id.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies 

as to his proposed claims against HS115. (Id.) 

 Defendants, however, have not filed a dispositive issue asserting these issues and 

their motion does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether 

these defenses preclude Plaintiff’s claims against the proposed new defendants to Count 

Two. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend to add 

defendants CS754 and HS115 to Count Two. 

 2. Proposed Count Four 

 Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint also includes an additional count, 

Count Four, against Defendant Sgt. Young. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

Sgt. Young delayed forwarding or processing grievances. (Doc. 98 at 14.) Plaintiff’s 

proposed Count Four does not include any details regarding the specific grievances or 

when this alleged conduct occurred. Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a 

cause of action. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982). Accordingly, permitting Plaintiff leave to amend to add Count Four would be 

futile. Additionally, in their response, Defendants state that during his deposition, 

Plaintiff admitted that his claims against Sgt. Young arose in 2012. (Doc. 110 at 4.) 

Accordingly, his claims would be time barred under the limitations period applicable to 

§ 1983 claims. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply addressing this assertion. Thus, the 

Court should deny leave to amend to add Count Four because it appears that those claims 

are time barred and the amendment would be futile. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file 

a third amended complaint (Doc. 99), in part, and deny it, in part. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file a 

Third Amended Complaint that includes the claims against Defendants “H5115, medical 

director at Lower Buckeye Jail” and “Becky/Doe CS754” that are included in the 

proposed Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 98 at 8-12.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 6 of 8
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Plaintiff leave to file a 

Third Amended Complaint that includes the proposed Count Four. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, if the Court adopts this Report and 

Recommendation, the Court order Plaintiff to file within fifteen days of the Court’s order, 

a Third Amended Complaint that includes Counts One, Two, and Three as they appear in 

the Proposed Third Amended Complaint, but that excludes proposed Count Four and Sgt. 

Young. Upon the filing of a Third Amended Complaint that complies with the Court’s 

Order, the assigned magistrate judge will issue an order regarding service of the Third 

Amended Complaint on Defendants H5115 and CS754. 

 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within 

which to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 7 of 8
- 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 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate 

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of 

fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 3rd day of August, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00081-PGR-BSB Document 113 Filed 08/04/15 Page 8 of 8