Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01021/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01021-0/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

1

 The screening order only ordered service on defendant Clark as to

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Silva Roque, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al. 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1021-PHX-PGR (MEA)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Aspey (doc. #29), wherein he recommends the denial of three pending

motions to amend the complaint (docs. ##14, 25, and 26) filed by the plaintiff. 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo in light of the

plaintiff’s timely objection thereto (doc. #31), the Court finds that the Report and

Recommendation should be accepted in part and rejected in part.

The following procedural history is relevant to the Court’s resolution of the

Report and Recommendation. In its order (doc. #11) screening the plaintiff’s

original complaint, entered on December 18, 2006 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(A), the Court in part dismissed twelve named defendants and dismissed

Counts II through VIII.1

 On January 9, 2007, the plaintiff filed both a Motion for

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 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

Count I. The United States Marshal Service has to date been unable to serve

Clark because his current whereabouts are not known. The Arizona Department

of Corrections and the Arizona Attorney General have been ordered to provide

the Court with Clark’s last known home address.

- 2 -

Relief from Judgment (doc. #16), wherein he in effect sought reconsideration of

the screening order’s dismissal of Counts II through VIII, and a Motion for Leave

to File an Amended Complaint (doc. #14), together with a proposed First

Amended Complaint. On April 2, 2007, the plaintiff submitted an Amended Civil

Rights Complaint (doc. #23), unaccompanied by any motion; the Clerk of the

Court docketed the amended complaint as being filed. In an order entered on

April 25, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment;

the Court’s order, however, neither discussed nor resolved the pending Motion for

Leave to File an Amended Complaint, nor did it discuss the Amended Civil Rights

Complaint filed on April 2nd. On June 18, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Add

a Defendant to Amended Complaint (doc. #25), wherein he seeks to add the

Arizona Department of Corrections to Count I of the amended complaint, together

with a Motion to Seek this Court to Proceed with Case (doc. #25), which in effect

is a request to expedite the proceedings. On July 12, 2007, the plaintiff filed an

additional motion to amend (doc. #26), wherein he seeks again to add the

Arizona Department of Corrections as a defendant to Count I of what he refers to

as the amended complaint, i.e. the Amended Civil Rights Complaint (doc. #23)

and to also add ADOC Director Schriro as a defendant to Count I. On September

20, 2007, the same date the Report and Recommendation was filed, the plaintiff

filed a Motion to Add Defendants to the Amended Complaint and to Correct the

Disciplinary Claim on the Amended Complaint (doc. #30).

The Report and Recommendation recommends in part that the plaintiff’s

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 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

2

 Although the Report and Recommendation does not discuss that

portion of the plaintiff’s third motion to amend (doc. #26) seeking to add Director

Schriro as a defendant to the excessive force claim in the Amended Civil Rights

Complaint (doc. #23), the Court will deny that portion of the motion without

prejudice because the Court is striking the amended complaint at issue. For the

same reason, the Court will deny without prejudice the plaintiff’s fourth motion to

amend (doc. #30).

- 3 -

initial motion to amend (doc. #14) be denied under the “law of the case” doctrine

because the Court’s order of April 4th, which denied the plaintiff’s motion for relief

from judgment, effectively denied the plaintiff’s motion. The Court cannot agree. 

Because the First Amended Complaint was the plaintiff’s first attempt to amend

his complaint and it was submitted prior to any defendant being served in this

action, the plaintiff had the right to amend his complaint without motion or court

order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) - his Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Complaint (doc. #14) was unnecessary and the Court erred in not filing and

docketing his First Amended Complaint (doc. #15). In order to cure this

procedural error, the Court will order that the First Amended Complaint (doc. #15)

be filed and screened in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

As the Report and Recommendation correctly notes, the plaintiff’s

Amended Civil Rights Complaint (doc. #23), which in effect was the plaintiff’s

second amended complaint, was filed without an accompanying motion and

without leave of Court. The Court will therefore strike that amended complaint.

The Report and Recommendation also recommends that the plaintiff’s two

motions to amend the amended complaint to add the Arizona Department of

Corrections as a defendant be denied on the ground that the ADOC is not a

suable entity for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court agrees.2

 The ADOC

is not a proper defendant in this action because, as an arm of the State of

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Arizona, it is not “person” that can be sued pursuant to § 1983. Hale v. State of

Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946

(1993) (Court, noting that neither a state nor an arm of a state is a “person” within

the meaning of § 1983, stated that “[w]e have no trouble concluding that the

Arizona Department of Corrections is an arm of the state.”); accord, Gilbreath v.

Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir.1991) (“Likewise, ‘arms of the

State’ such as the Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under

section 1983.”) Therefore,

 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(doc. #29) is accepted in part and rejected in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint (doc. #14) is granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) and

that the Clerk of the Court shall file and docket the plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (lodged as doc. #15), submitted on January 9, 2007, as the plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights

Complaint (doc. #23), filed on April 2, 2007, is stricken from the record.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Add a Defendant

to Amended Complaint Filed in Count I of Complaint (doc. #25-1) and Motion to

Add Arizona Department of Correction and Defendant Dora B. Schriro to Count I

Excessive Force of Amended Complaint (doc. #26) are both denied, with

prejudice as to the Arizona Department of Corrections and without prejudice as to

Dora Schriro.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Add Defendants to

the Amended Complaint and to Correct the Disciplinary Claim on the Amended

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

Complaint (doc. #30) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Seek this Court to

Proceed with Case (doc. #25-2) is granted to the extent that the plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint is referred to Magistrate Judge Aspey for further

proceedings, including screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 5 of 5