Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00406-0/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

FORREST JUAN CRADDOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-00406 PHX ROS (MEA)

) 

SHERIFF CHRIS VASQUEZ, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on

referral from the District Judge, and the determination of the

Magistrate Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

(C).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions at Docket

No. 31 and 32, to dismiss his case and to amend his complaint,

respectively, and Plaintiff’s motions at Docket Nos. 40 to 52,

each seeking to amend his complaint.

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 15
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- 

I Procedural background

Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated by the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint on

February 22, 2007, alleging Defendants violated his federal

constitutional rights while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the

Pinal County Jail. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on

April 13, 2007. See Docket No. 5. Plaintiff filed a second

amended complaint on July 13, 2007. See Docket No. 15. 

The second amended complaint alleges that, on

February 21 through February 27, 2007, Dr. Lizarraga and other

medical staff at the Pinal County Jail failed to follow the

medical orders of a Dr. Trudeau regarding the post-surgical

treatment of Plaintiff’s hand, and that the named Defendants

did not provide Plaintiff with medication for his pain as

prescribed. See Docket No. 15. Plaintiff further alleged the

Pinal Count Jail medical staff were negligent regarding his

medical care beginning on November 24, 2006, through March of

2007.

On August 13, 2007, the Court ordered Defendant

Lizarraga to answer Plaintiff’s claim that he violated

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him

with adequate medical care during Plaintiff’s incarceration at

the Pinal County Jail. See Docket No. 16. Specifically, the

Court ordered Defendant Lizarraga to answer the claim he was

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs

by delaying a second surgery on Plaintiff’s hand. See Docket

No. 16. At that time the Court dismissed the other defendants

named in the second amended complaint and dismissed

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 15
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

 The order states: “Count I (in part) and Defendants Vasquez,

Brown, Celis, Jackson and Pinal County nurses Nancy, Edna, Lisa and

Bob are dismissed without prejudice.”

-3- 

Plaintiff’s claims of negligence by state officials and a

claim of supervisory liability.1 

The screening order states:

Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that

Defendants were negligent with respect to

caring for his injured right hand following

a surgery performed by Dr. Trudeau at the

Maricopa County Medical Center.

Specifically, he alleges the Defendants

were negligent in treating his injured

hand, scheduling the initial surgery for

the hand, changing dressings on his hand

and in providing prescribed pain

medications. Plaintiff alleges as a result

that he developed an infection of the

injured hand and was rushed to Maricopa

County Medical Center on March 17, 2007.

(Id. at 6-I.) He indicates that a second

surgery on his hand is required to restore

function to his injured fingers, but that

Dr. Lizarraga has deliberately delayed that

surgery so that Pinal County will not have

to bear the expense. (Id. at 6-I, 6-J.)

Despite Plaintiff’s numerous other

allegations, he expressly states that the

only claim that he wishes to pursue is Dr.

Lizarraga’s deliberate delay in providing

the second surgery for his hand. (Id. at

6-J-6-K.)

Docket No. 16 at 2 (emphasis added).

Defendant Lizarraga was served and filed an answer to

the second amended complaint on October 9, 2007. See Docket

No. 18. A scheduling order was issued October 11, 2007,

requiring Plaintiff to file any motion to amend his complaint

by November 30, 2007. See Docket No. 20.

On November 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to

dismiss his second amended complaint, asking the Court’s

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 15
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 Lizarraga, through counsel undersigned,

respectfully takes no position on the Motions to Amend

filed by Plaintiff. Undersigned counsel does not believe it

likely that he will represent any of the new potential

defendants, and so takes no position on the requested

amendments.

-4- 

permission to do this so that he could file an amended

complaint again naming Defendant Lizarraga and naming other

defendants previously dismissed from this matter. See Docket

No. 31. That same day Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend

his complaint. See Docket No. 32. Plaintiff has also filed a

motion for summary judgment against all defendants named in

his lodged proposed third amended complaint. See Docket No.

37. Plaintiff also filed, from November 28 through December

4, 2007, inter alia, twelve separate motions to amend his

complaint. See Docket Nos. 40-52. Defendant Lizarraga filed

a response to these motions on December 21, 2007. Defendant

Lizarraga does not oppose any of the motions to amend. See

Docket No. 53.2

The only motion to amend Plaintiff’s complaint which

is timely filed is the one filed November 15, 2007, at Docket

No. 32. 

II Analysis

A. Applicable law regarding motions to amend

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

provides that a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his

complaint when justice so requires. See, e.g., United States

v. Hougham, 364 U.S. 310, 316, 81 S. Ct. 13, 17 (1960); Howey

v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). “Thus

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 15
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

-5- 

Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be

applied with extreme liberality. This policy is applied even

more liberally to pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832

F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations and

quotations omitted).

When screening pro se prisoner complaints the Court

is obliged to liberally construe the complaint:

The handwritten pro se document is to be

liberally construed.... [A] pro se

complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,”

must be held to “less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”

and can only be dismissed for failure to

state a claim if it appears “‘beyond doubt

that the plaintiff can prove no set of

facts in support of his claim which would

entitle him to relief.’” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976)

(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct.

594, 596 (1972)). Leave to amend a complaint should be

granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can

correct a defect in his complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

However, in exercising its discretion with regard to

a motion to amend a complaint filed after a responsive

pleading, the Court should consider the prejudice to the

opposing party and the futility of allowing the amendment.

See Schlachter-Jones v. General Tele., 936 F.2d 435, 443-44

(9th Cir. 1991). “[T]he policy of allowing the amendments of

pleadings must be tempered with considerations of undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 5 of 15
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

-6- 

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of

allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." Id.

at 443 (internal quotations omitted). The Court would

eventually have to dismiss a claim added to a complaint if the

plaintiff raised a claim that was legally frivolous or

malicious, that failed to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that sought monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(c)(1) (2003 &

Supp. 2007).

B. Applicable law regarding Eighth Amendment

To prevail in a section 1983 medical treatment claim

a plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with

“deliberate indifference to his serious medical need.”

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical

need exists only if the defendant’s failure to treat the

plaintiff’s condition could result in further significant

injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain on the

plaintiff. Id., 429 U.S. at 104. “A defendant must

purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a [plaintiff’s]

pain, medical need or condition acting with knowledge or

reckless disregard resulting in significant harm” to violate

the plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights. Farmer v. Brenna, 511

U.S. 825, 831-32 (1994). 

“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind

more blame worthy than negligence,” but “is satisfied by

something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of

causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Id,,

511 U.S. at 835. Deliberate indifference is demonstrated

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 6 of 15
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

-7- 

where prison officials deny, delay, or interfere with medical

treatment, if the indifference is substantial and the conduct

rises to the level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06; Hutchinson v. United

States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). A delay in medical

care that does not result in “substantial harm” is

insufficient, as a matter of law, to prevail on a section 1983

claim. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.

1990). Additionally, state prison officials have “wide

discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical

treatment.” Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.

1986). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient

and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not

give rise to a section 1983 claim.” Franklin v. State of Or.

Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Additionally, a supervisor is only liable for his

subordinates’ violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights

if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations,

or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. 

See Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. 

C. Analysis of Plaintiff’s proposed amendments

The proposed third amended complaint seeks to add as

defendants in this matter, in addition to Defendant Lizarraga,

Commander Brown, the Pinal County Jail Commander, Grievance

Officer Celis, Elke Jackson, a nurse at the jail, and other

nurses at the jail named “Nancy,” “Bob,” “Lisa” and “Edna”.

See Docket No. 33. Count I of the lodged complaint asserts a

claim pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, based on “negligence”

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 7 of 15
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

-8- 

and deliberate indifference. Id. Plaintiff alleges Mr. Brown

refused to transport him to a hospital for surgery, that

Defendant Lizarraga failed to promptly schedule Plaintiff for

surgery, and that Defendant Lizarraga was negligent in his

oversight of jail medical staff. Id. at 3. Count II of the

lodged complaint asserts a violation of the Eighth Amendment

against Commander Brown for being aware of Plaintiff’s

grievances regarding his medical treatment and failing to

remedy “negligence.” Id. at 4. 

Count III of the lodged complaint asserts Ms. Jackson

failed to properly clean Plaintiff’s hand and failed to

administer prescribed pain medication. Id. at 5. Count IV

alleges the same basis for liability against Nurse “Nancy” as

those alleged against Ms. Jackson. Id. at 6. Count V of the

amended complaint alleges the same basis for liability as

alleged against Ms. Jackson against “Nurse Bob.” Id. at 7.

Count VI of the amended complaint alleges the same basis for

liability as alleged against Ms. Jackson against “Nurse Edna.”

Id. at 8. 

Count VII of the proposed amended complaint alleges

that Grievance Officer Celis was aware Plaintiff was not

receiving adequate medical treatment and that Mr. Celis

“mishandled” Plaintiff’s grievances regarding his medical

treatment. Id. at 9. Count VIII of the amended complaint

alleges the same basis for liability as alleged against Ms.

Jackson against “Nurse Lisa.” Plaintiff seeks injunctive

relief in the lodged complaint, i.e., that the Court order the

named defendants to perform surgery on his hand, and also

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 8 of 15
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

-9- 

seeks monetary damages in the amount of $250,000 from each of

the named defendants.

Each of Plaintiff’s “motions” to amend his complaint

signed November 21, 2007, and filed November 28, 2007,

reasserts his claims against a single defendant named in the

proposed amended complaint at Docket No. 33, and cites to case

law Plaintiff believes supports his claims. See Docket No. 40

(alleging a deliberate indifference claim against Mr. Brown

and implying a due process claim); Docket No. 41 (alleging a

deliberate indifference claim against Mr. Celis and implying a

due process claim); Docket No. 42 (restating Plaintiff’s

claims against Defendant Lizarraga); Docket No. 43 (alleging a

deliberate indifference claim against “Nurse Edna” and

implying a due process claim); Docket No. 45 (same for Pinal

County Sheriff Chris Vasquez). In each of these motions

Plaintiff also asks the Court to designate his case a “test

case,” challenging the policy of the Pinal County Jail

regarding the provision of medical care to inmates. 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend signed November 23, 2007,

and filed December 3, 2007, does not indicate how Plaintiff

wishes to amend his complaint. See Docket No. 47.

Plaintiff’s ninth motion to amend his complaint, signed

November 23, 2007, and filed December 3, 2007, alleges a

deliberate indifference claim against Elke Johnson and implies

a due process claim. See Docket No. 48. Plaintiff’s motions

to amend his complaint at Docket Nos. 49 through 50,

respectively, do not indicate how Plaintiff wishes to amend

his complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to amend at docket No. 51

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 9 of 15
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

-10- 

attempts to reassert claims against “Nurse Nancy” and ask the

Court to make his case a “test case”, and Plaintiff’s motion

to amend at Docket No. 52 is a duplicate of Docket No. 51.

The initial motion for leave to amend was timely

filed and is not opposed by Defendant Lizarraga. Plaintiff

does not seek to add new factual allegations or a new basis

for a claim for relief. Cf. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902

F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding the denial of leave

to amend because the plaintiff had delayed filing the amended

complaint for eight months beyond the time they should have

known of the existence of the claims and noting that

“[p]rejudice to the opposing party is the most important

factor” in determining whether to grant leave to amend);

Duggins v. Steak ‘N Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir.

1999) (upholding denial of leave to amend where the District

Court cited the plaintiff’s undue delay in missing the

deadline to amend the complaint and undue prejudice to the

defendant where the plaintiff sought amendment after the close

of discovery); Smith v. Angelone, 111 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th

Cir. 1997) (stating that “a motion to amend may be denied when

it has been unduly delayed and when allowing the motion would

prejudice the nonmovant”).

The undersigned believes the Screening Order’s

conclusion that Plaintiff wished to drop all claims in his

Second Amended Complaint except that against Defendant

Lizarraga is a mis-reading of Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint, when the complaint is broadly construed, wherein

Plaintiff states he wishes to drop claims related to his being

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 10 of 15
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

-11- 

assigned a lower bunk and his allegation that he received

inadequate medical care for a “naval” hernia. See Docket No.

15 at 6J-6K. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint, lodged November 15, 2007, at Docket No. 33 was

timely filed and does, albeit unartfully, allege that

Defendant Lizarraga, and Ms. Johnson, “Nurse Edna”, “Nurse

Nancy,” “Nurse Bob,” and “Nurse Lisa,” were deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, the Court

concludes the amendment should be allowed. 

The undersigned also concludes, however, that the

lodged complaint does not adequately allege that Mr. Celis

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Mr. Celis was not

himself involved in the provision of medical care, and

Plaintiff has not stated a claim for violation of his

constitutional rights by alleging Mr. Celis was negligent in

the process or resolution of Plaintiff’s grievances. See

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“inmates

lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific

prison grievance procedure.”), cert. denied sub nom., 124 S.

Ct. 2388 (2004); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir.

2001).

The undersigned further concludes Plaintiff has not

sufficiently alleged a basis for supervisory liability on

behalf of Sheriff Vasquez because Plaintiff has not alleged

how Sheriff Vasquez was responsible for decisions regarding

the provision of medical care to Plaintiff. A defendant is

not liable to a plaintiff for violation of the plaintiff’s

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 11 of 15
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

-12- 

constitutional rights unless the defendant was personally

involved in the alleged constitutional violation. See Rizzo

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976); Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must also

establish that a defendant’s conduct, allegedly violating the

plaintiff’s rights, was within their discretion and authority

to control. See Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045; Pinto v.

Nettleship, 737 F.2d 130, 133 (1st Cir. 1984); Williams v.

Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1388 (11th Cir. 1982). Section 1983

liability cannot be predicated on the theory of respondeat

superior. See, e.g., Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.

To the extent Plaintiff’s motion to amend seeks to

add any claim of negligence against the Defendants acting in

their official capacities or within the scope of their legal

duty, the motion should be denied as futile. See, e.g.,

Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 1984);

Linville v. State of Hawaii, 874 F. Supp. 1095, 1104 (D. Haw.

1994). See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31-201.01 (2002 &

Supp. 2006). Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims against the

Defendants who allegedly mis-treated his hand are properly

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, and do not

state claims for violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process

of law.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend

his complaint at Docket No. 32 be granted in part and denied

in part.

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 12 of 15
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

-13- 

The undersigned recommends the motion be denied

insofar as it seeks to add Sheriff Vasquez and Mr. Celis as

defendants and that the motion be denied insofar as it

attempts to add claims premised on negligence.

The undersigned further recommends that the motion be

granted to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to assert an Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference claim regarding his medical

treatment by Dr. Lizarraga, Elke Johnson, “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse

Lisa,” “Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna.” The undersigned

recommends that the Court order the Pinal County Sheriff’s

Office to provide the last names of the nurses who worked at

the jail on February 21 through February 27, 2007, to the

extent any of these nurses could be shown to be “Nurse Bob,”

“Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna.” After the last

names of these potential defendants are known, the undersigned

recommends the Court order service on these individuals and

that they be required to answer Plaintiff’s assertion that

they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs in February and March of 2007.

The undersigned further concludes that Plaintiff’s

motion to amend his complaint to make his case a “test case”

should be denied. The allegations made by Plaintiff are with

regard to his incarceration and his specific injury and,

accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated any legitimate reason

why his situation would warrant a class action suit.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at

Docket No. 31 be denied as moot. 

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 13 of 15
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

-14- 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions at

Docket No. 40, Docket No. 41, Docket No. 42, Docket No. 43,

Docket No. 44, Docket No. 45, Docket No. 47, Docket No. 48,

Docket No. 49, Docket No. 50, Docket No. 51, and Docket No.

52, be denied.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment at Docket No. 37 be denied without prejudice.

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 ten (10) 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 ten (10) days within which to file a response

to the objections. 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. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 900 (2003). 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 recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 14 of 15
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

-15- 

DATED this 16th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 56 Filed 01/17/08 Page 15 of 15