Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01757/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01757-4/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Carrasco Gamez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01757-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue are Plaintiff Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr.’s Motion to Amend the 

Complaint in this matter (Doc. 42) and submit a Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”); 

Motion for Entry of Default as to Defendant Antoinette Gatlin (Doc. 46); a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 47) prepared by Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine 

addressing both Motions, to which Plaintiff has filed an Objection (Doc. 49); and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 50). 

 On April 20, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice Counts One, Two, Four 

and Five of the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), and dismissed without prejudice 

Defendants Ryan, Hetmer, Fizer, Quintero, Crabtree, Washburn, Gidcumb, Brass, 

Cisneros and Garcia. (Doc. 31.) It ordered the lone remaining Defendant, Gatlin, to 

answer Count Three of the TAC after she was served, and ordered Plaintiff to serve 

Gatlin on or before July 21, 2015. On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed his FAC, which the 

Court struck as unauthorized pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). 

Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 42). Plaintiff’s proposed 

FAC would resuscitate dismissed Claim Four from the TAC (embodying a claim for 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 51 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

threat to safety or failure to protect) and dismissed Claim Five from the TAC (embodying 

a claim for violation of Due Process rights), and would add defendants to surviving 

Claim Three (inadequate medical care).1

 Subsequently, Plaintiff sought to enter default 

judgment against Defendant Gatlin. 

I. Addition of Defendants in Claim Three – Inadequate Medical Care Claim 

 In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Fine addressed both Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

and his Motion for Default. Judge Fine first analyzed Plaintiff’s attempted amendment of 

his surviving inadequate medical care claim in Claim Three of the FAC to include two 

additional defendants—Arizona Department of Corrections Director Ryan and a nurse, D. 

Shamblin. This Court adopts the R&R’s recommendation that it deny leave to amend for 

the purpose of expanding Claim Three to add the new Defendants, and Judge Fine’s 

reasoning therefor, in whole. As was the case in previous versions of his Complaint, 

Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would give rise to a claim of deliberate 

indifference as against Defendant Shamblin, and allowing Plaintiff to amend his 

Complaint yet again does not address this deficiency, because there still are no such facts 

stated. Similarly, Plaintiff’s attempts to allege claims against Defendant Ryan have failed 

to meet the mark for all the reasons listed in the R&R, which this Court will not repeat 

now. 

 In his Objections, Plaintiff argues that the R&R would require him to give a 

narrative in his Complaint, or in the alternative, hold him to a “hypertechnical standard of 

detail.” (Doc. 49 at 14.) The Court disagrees. The point of the pleading rules is to require 

a complaint to state sufficient facts to satisfy each element of a claim. That does not 

amount to, as Plaintiff appears to believe, legally conclusory language without the facts 

that lead to such conclusions. In other words, it is not enough simply to say, regarding 

Claim Three, that either Defendant Shamblin or Ryan were “deliberately indifferent,” as 

Plaintiff has done repeatedly. Plaintiff must state specific facts from which one could 

 1

 Plaintiff does not attempt to resurrect in the FAC his claims for assault (dismissed 

Claim One) and excessive force (dismissed Claim Two), so the Court need not address 

them. 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 51 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

draw the conclusion that they were in fact indifferent under the legal standards as set 

forth in detail in Judge Fine’s R&R. Plaintiff stated no such facts with regard to either 

Defendant Shamblin or Ryan, and it would be futile for Plaintiff to attempt to amend 

again, as these facts do not appear to be available as to either of these Defendants. Even if 

they were, Plaintiff has now had multiple opportunities to perfect the claim and the Court 

has advised Plaintiff multiple times what he needed to do to meet the pleading standards, 

but he has failed to do so. The Court will not allow Plaintiff to amend Claim Three again 

for this purpose. It is time to move forward with this action. 

II. Claim Four – Failure to Protect Claim 

 The R&R next recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend to add back in the previously dismissed Claim Four, in which Plaintiff alleges 

threat to safety and failure to protect. Again, for the reasons detailed in Judge Fine’s 

R&R, the Court will deny the Motion. Plaintiff again objects that the R&R would require 

him to state an “overbroad narrative” and hold him “to a hypertechnical standard.” 

(Doc. 49 at 2.) But that is not the reasoning set forth in the R&R. Plaintiff simply has not 

stated facts from which to conclude that that any specific defendant knew or should have 

known prior to his assault on September 7, 2011, that inmate Garcia posed a substantial 

threat to him. Alleged gang retribution lists from 2009 and 2010 do not meet the 

standard, as this Court noted in dismissing Claim Four of the TAC in April of 2015, but 

Plaintiff continues to assert the same argument without change. The Court will deny the 

Motion to Amend as it regards dismissed Claim Four. 

III. Claim Five – Due Process Claim 

 Judge Fine also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend insofar as it seeks to renew his dismissed Claim Five, in which he alleges that 

several detention officers and supervisors violated his Due Process rights by misapplying 

the prison disciplinary process to him. In so recommending, Judge Fine observes in the 

R&R that Plaintiff states in the FAC the same facts that this Court previously found 

inadequate to state a claim. Undeterred, Plaintiff restates these same facts one more time 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 51 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

in his Objection, and in so doing ignores and argues right past the reasoning Judge Fine 

set forth. There is nothing new here. As this Court previously held, Plaintiff’s allegations, 

even if taken as true, do not demonstrate that he suffered any atypical and significant 

hardships, and he is not entitled to a particular security classification or housing 

designation. The Court will deny the Motion to Amend as it regards dismissed Claim 

Five. 

IV. Motion for Default 

 Finally, the R&R recommends denial of Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default as 

against Defendant Gatlin. The R&R noted that shortly after the Court ordered Gatlin to 

respond to the TAC, and before Plaintiff even served the TAC to her, Plaintiff filed a 

FAC and then the instant Motion to amend, thus taking this matter off track. Plaintiff’s 

Objection to the R&R is simply to restate the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 

regarding the time limits for answering a complaint. This does not address Judge Fine’s 

analysis that by filing another amended complaint before the last one was served, 

Plaintiff has injected delay into the process and uncertainty on the part of Defendant 

Gatlin and her counsel as to what complaint she should answer. The Court will deny 

Plaintiff’s request for default at this point. 

 Having now denied all amendments to the TAC which Plaintiff sought in his 

Motion, some certainty is reestablished that the TAC is the operative Complaint in this 

matter, and Claim Three is the only surviving claim to which Defendant Gatlin should 

respond. The Court will direct her to answer that claim. 

V. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel in this matter, citing his limited knowledge 

of the law, the complexity of issues in the case and his limited access to a law library. 

(Doc. 50 at 2.) Appointing counsel for an incarcerated plaintiff in a Section 1983 action, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1), is a matter within the Court’s discretion. See 

Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). Generally, a person has no right to 

counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F. 2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 51 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

The Court may, upon demonstration of exceptional circumstances, appoint counsel for 

indigent civil litigants pursuant to Section 1915. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 

America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether exceptional 

circumstances exist, the Court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as 

well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. See Palmer v. Valadez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). To this 

point, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Nor has 

Plaintiff displayed an inability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED adopting in whole the Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 47) submitted by Judge Fine in this matter, and all reasoning 

within it. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend 

(Doc. 42). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion/Request for Entry of 

Default Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55 (Doc. 46). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk prepare a service packet using the 

address for Defendant Gatlin from Document 44. The United States Marshal must serve 

a copy of this Order on Defendant Gatlin and within 10 days after personal service is 

effected, file the notice of service for Defendant Gatlin. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gatlin shall file her Answer or other 

responsive pleading to Claim Three of the Third Amended Complaint within 21 days of 

of service being effected. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 51 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 

(Doc. 50). 

 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01757-JJT Document 51 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 6