Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01890/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01890-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

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

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Riki Rashaad Muhammad, 

 Plaintiff 

 vs 

Arizona Department of Corrections, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

CV-11-1890-PHX-SMM (JFM) 

O R D E R 

Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 25), raising 

claims of equal protection, free exercise of religion, and violations of the Religious Land 

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and in Count 7 a claim of deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s safety. The Court’s Screening Order dismissed Counts 1, 5, 

and 6. It further directed responses from various combinations of Defendants Ryan, 

Krause, Linderman, and/or (J.) Lind to Counts 2, 3, and 4. A response from Defendant 

Ams to Count 7 was required. (Order 7/25/13, Doc. 29.) 

Defendants Ryan, Linderman, Lind, and Ams appeared, and Ryan, Linderman 

and Lind filed a notice of settlement (Doc. 60). In addition, Defendant Ams has recently 

filed what the Court has construed to be a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies (Doc. 67). 

In the interim, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Relief (Doc. 37) seeking 

preliminary relief as to count 3 (religious diet). He has also filed a Motion for Class 

Certification (Doc. 46), seeking his certification as a class representative as to the claims 

in Counts 2, 3, and 4. 

Case 2:11-cv-01890-SMM-JFM Document 76 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 3
 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

 Service on Defendant Krause was originally returned unexecuted, an address for 

service was ordered, and on February 14, 2014, a Waiver of Service was filed, reflecting 

a waiver of service by Defendant Krause. To date, Defendant Krause has not appeared. 

 On July 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Metcalf observed the incomplete settlement, 

pending motions for preliminary relief and class certification, and failure to serve 

Defendant Krause. Deadlines were set for, inter alia, the parties to file a stipulation to 

dismiss, and Plaintiff to show cause why the pending motions should not be denied as 

moot, and Defendant Krause dismissed for failure to effect timely service. 

Stipulation/Motion to Dismiss - On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendants Lind, 

Linderman, and Ryan filed a Notice of Settlement and Stipulation for Partial Dismissal, 

advising that the parties had “reached a global settlement agreement of all disputed 

claims between them,” and requesting “an order dismissing this action in its entirety and 

as to every defendant except for Defendant Ams.” (Doc. 71.) 

 In an Order filed July 17, 2014, Magistrate Judge Metcalf observed that 

Defendant Ams had not joined in the stipulation, construed the stipulation as a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss with prejudice Counts 2, 3, and 4, and not 

only Defendants Lind, Linderman and Ryan, but also Defendant Krause. The Court set a 

deadline for a response in opposition or a joinder. On July 18, 2014, Defendant Ams 

filed her Joinder (Doc. 74) in the Stipulation for Partial Dismissal. 

 With the joinder by Defendant Ams, all appearing parties have joined in a 

stipulation of dismissal. Thus, the Stipulation for Partial Dismissal qualifies for a 

voluntary dismissal by Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

 Because the Stipulation specified that the dismissal should be with prejudice, the 

dismissal may be with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). 

 Therefore, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Defendants Lind, Linderman, 

Ryan and Krause and Counts 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to the stipulation. 

 Pending Motions - Plaintiff has failed to show cause why his pending motions 

should not be deemed moot as a result of the claims disposed of in the settlement. The 

Case 2:11-cv-01890-SMM-JFM Document 76 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 3
 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

time to do so has expired. Accordingly, those motions will be denied as moot. 

Remaining Claims and Parties - This leaves pending Count 7 of the Second 

Amended Complaint against Defendant Ams, and Defendant Ams’ Motion for Judgment 

on the Pleadings/Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 67). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court’s order to show cause filed July 

1, 2014 shall be deemed SATISFIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation for Partial 

Dismissal, filed July 8, 2014 (Doc. 71), that Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 25) are DIMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Lind, Linderman, Ryan and 

Krause are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Relief, 

filed September 26, 2013 (Doc. 37) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, 

filed November 29, 2013 (Doc. 46) is DENIED as moot. 

 DATED this 30th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01890-SMM-JFM Document 76 Filed 07/30/14 Page 3 of 3