Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01323/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01323-3/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

Angel Soto, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, Unknown Sweetman, 

Unknown Zamora, Unknown Gutierrez, 

Unknown Ramirez, Unknown Harris, 

Unknown Banghart, Unknown Jones, 

Unknown Schell, Unknown Emore, 

Unknown Rodriguez, Unknown Victoria, 

Unknown Bope, Unknown Swaney, 

Unknown McClellan, 

Defendants.

No. CV 14-01323-PHX-SMM (DMF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE: 

 This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Judge. Because 

a magistrate judge cannot decide a “matter dispositive of a claim or defense or a prisoner 

petition challenging the conditions of confinement,” Rule 72(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the undersigned recommends as follows. 

 On August 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 66), 

ordering Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants Rodriguez and Ramirez should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve these Defendants within the time specified by the 

Court in the Order at Doc. 10. Plaintiff responded on September 8, 2015 (Doc. 67), 

requesting that Defendants “look into their log books from April 2010 from the control 

where the watchpod the Plaintiff was in, to see if they can identify the names Rodriguez 

Case 2:14-cv-01323-SMM-DMF Document 75 Filed 10/23/15 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 

and Ramirez by their Badge number.” (Doc. 67 at 1.) On September 22, 2015, the Court 

entered an Order (Doc. 71) directing Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Response at 

Doc. 67. On September 30, 2015, Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 72), stating that 

they are unable to identity Defendants “COII Ramirez” and “COII Rodriguez.” (Doc. 72 

at 1.) Defendants state that: 

Defendants have inquired of the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (“ADC”) regarding officers that might be 

relevant to the [sic] Soto’s claim of assault and rape while he 

was unconscious on the morning of April 17, 2010, and ADC 

advises there are no officers matching the names and details 

contained in Soto’s Complaint or the underlying Use of Force 

(“UOF”) event . . . . As indicated in the attached e-mail chain 

conversation between undersigned’s senior legal assistant 

Scott MacPherson and ADC employee Dolores Wilson . . ., 

in consultation with Browning Unit Associate Deputy 

Warden Edward Shuman, there were no officers named 

Ramirez or Rodriguez on site at the time of the UOF event. 

Doc. 72 at 2. The Response indicates that although there were two COII Ramirezes on 

staff that day, “neither worked overtime on this day or were present” at the UOF event. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendants Rodriguez and 

Ramirez be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve these Defendants within the time 

specified by the Court in the Order at Doc. 10. 

 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), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. 

 Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length. 

Case 2:14-cv-01323-SMM-DMF Document 75 Filed 10/23/15 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 

 Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 

 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2015. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01323-SMM-DMF Document 75 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 3