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

FRANK B. ROQUE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-01021 PHX PGR (MEA)

)

DORA B. SCHRIRO, JOHN ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ONTIVEROS, NEESE, R.G. INMAN, )

CAPTAIN COOK, COII T. CLARK, )

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

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. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion at Docket No.

44, filed December 5, 2007, and styled as a motion to dismiss

John Ontiveros as a defendant in this matter and seeking to

amend his complaint. The substance of Plaintiff’s motion is a

desire to replace Mr. Ontiveros as a defendant with Robert

Stewart, Mr. Ontiveros’ successor as warden. 

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 7
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 Background

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was lodged January

8, 2007, and filed September 28, 2007. See Docket No. 15 and

Docket No. 33. Defendant Ontiveros was named by Plaintiff as a

defendant in both his official and individual capacity in the

first amended complaint. On October 9, 2007, Defendant

Ontiveros was ordered to answer Count IV of Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint. In Count IV, Plaintiff claims that on three

occasions, presumably in 2005, he was placed in a cell without

clothing, bedding, pillows, or a mattress, and that the cell was

extremely cold, in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be

free of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants Schriro, Ontiveros, and Neese were responsible for a

policy resulting in Plaintiff being subjected to the cell’s

unconstitutional conditions. See Docket No. 34 at 2. Defendant

Ontiveros is sued in both his individual and administrative

capacities, as one who allegedly “initiates and enforces”

unconstitutional policies at the prison. See Docket No. 33.

Defendant Ontiveros retired from his position as warden on or

about January 16, 2007, and Plaintiff seeks to replace Defendant

Ontiveros as a defendant in this matter with his successor, Mr.

Robert Stewart. Defendant Ontiveros has not been served with

the summons and complaint and, accordingly, he has not filed an

answer to the complaint.

II Analysis

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

that a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his complaint

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 7
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 -3-

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). 

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 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 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). 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).

 To state a claim for violation of his civil rights, a

plaintiff must allege that a specific individual personally

participated in the constitutional deprivation and was

deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s constitutional

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 3 of 7
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 -4-

rights. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 377, 96 S. Ct. 598,

607 (1976); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987).

The plaintiff must allege how the official individually

personally participated in the constitutional deprivation, or

the plaintiff must allege that the governmental supervisory

official was aware of widespread abuses and acted with

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 377, 96 S. Ct. at 607; King, 814

F.2d at 568.

Because Plaintiff asserted Defendant Ontiveros’

personal liability with regard to the violation of his

constitutional rights, Plaintiff cannot substitute Mr. Stewart

in his personal capacity for Defendant Ontiveros acting in his

personal capacity. Additionally, because Mr. Stewart assumed

his position as warden after the occurrence of the three events

alleged in Count IV, it is not possible for Plaintiff to allege

Mr. Stewart personally participated in these constitutional

deprivations. Nor can Plaintiff allege that Mr. Stewart, who

was not in a supervisory position in 2005, was aware of the

allegedly unconstitutional policy enforced on Plaintiff on these

three occasions and was himself deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Having assumed the job of warden after the events

complained of by Plaintiff in Count IV, Mr. Stewart cannot have

caused the alleged deprivations and he cannot be liable to

Plaintiff in his individual capacity or in his official capacity

for any alleged deprivations pursuant to section 1983. See

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 4 of 7
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-

Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

(affirming the dismissal of a Bivens action against a police

chief who “took office ... as the events in question drew to a

close,” as “no corrective action on his part could have aided

[plaintiff] since the harm he asserts had already taken place”),

abrogated on other grounds by Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250,

126 S. Ct. 1695 (2006); Banks v. York, 515 F. Supp. 2d 89, 102

(D.D.C. 2007).

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint

to substitute a party defendant represents undue delay which

would prejudice Mr. Stewart. Defendant Ontiveros retired from

his position in January of 2007, and Plaintiff did not seek

leave to substitute Mr. Stewart as a defendant for Mr. Ontiveros

until approximately nine months later. Accordingly, the motion

to substitute may also be denied as untimely. 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).

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 5 of 7
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-

III Conclusion

Having assumed the job of warden after the events

complained of by Plaintiff as against Defendant Ontiveros, Mr.

Stewart cannot have caused the alleged deprivations of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Additionally, Plaintiff’s

motion for substitution of a party defendant is not timely. The

Court notes Plaintiff has not effected service of the summons

and first amended complaint on Defendant Ontiveros and,

accordingly, the substitution of an unserved party for a

different unserved party would serve no useful purpose. 

 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (Docket No. 44) be denied.

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

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 6 of 7
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-

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.) (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. 

DATED this 4th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 50 Filed 01/07/08 Page 7 of 7