Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00630/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00630-0/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

GERLANDO CURRERI, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 09-00630 PHX JAT MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

PAUL BABEU, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG:

Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, on or about March 29, 2009. The complaint was dismissed

with leave to amend. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of

the time allowed to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 8.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was docketed August 3, 2009.

See Doc. 9. The first amended complaint named ten defendants

and alleged seventeen violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights.

In an order filed January 7, 2010, the Court ordered

Defendant Johnson to answer counts 4 and 5 of the amended

complaint, ordered Defendant Jackson to answer counts 6 and 7 of

the amended complaint, and ordered Defendant Venezuela to answer

count 14 of the amended complaint. See Doc. 11. The Court

dismissed the other counts of the complaint and the other named

defendants from this matter.

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 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

-2-

Defendant Jackson waived service on or about February

1, 2010. See Doc. 13. Defendant Venezuela waived service on or

about February 1, 2010. See Doc. 18. 

On April 6, 2010, Defendants Jackson and Venezuela

filed a motion to dismiss. See Doc. 19. Defendant Johnson

waived service on or about May 6, 2010, and joined in the motion

to dismiss filed by the other defendants. See Doc. 26.

In an order issued July 1, 2010, the Court denied the

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Doc. 30. Accordingly, on

July 6, 2010, a scheduling order was issued requiring discovery

be completed by January 5, 2011, and that dispositive motions be

filed by March 4, 2011. The parties have engaged in discovery

and Plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings.

On October 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend

his complaint. See Doc. 49. Plaintiff seeks to “amend

erroneous claims of 8th amendment violations” and to “add some

critical facts.” Id. Plaintiff also seeks to amend his

complaint to allege further violations of his constitutional

rights by Defendants. The lodged proposed second amended

complaint is an edited version of the first amended complaint,

and includes defendants previously dismissed from this suit.

Defendants have filed a response in opposition to the motion to

amend. See Doc. 50.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an

officer or an employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a) (2006 & Supp. 2010). The Court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/10/10 Page 2 of 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

-3-

that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 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).

However, granting a plaintiff leave to amend “is subject to the

qualification that the amendment not cause undue prejudice to

the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is not futile.”

Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 799 (9th

Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

In exercising its discretion with regard to a motion to

amend a complaint filed after a responsive pleading has been

served, 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). 

This matter has now proceeded through a motion to

dismiss the complaint and discovery. Discovery is set to close

in approximately one month. Plaintiff should not now be allowed

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/10/10 Page 3 of 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

-4-

to amend his complaint to restore claims and defendants

previously dismissed from this matter. Allowing Plaintiff to

add additional causes of action to this suit at this time in

these proceedings, which would require further discovery,

prejudice newly added defendants, and delay the proceedings, is

not in the interests of justice in this matter. See Divkovic v.

Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

2002). The Court’s discretion should not be exercised to allow

Plaintiff to add new factual allegations to his complaint which

would, in effect, alter his claims 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”).

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (Doc. 49) be denied.

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/10/10 Page 4 of 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

-5-

 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. 

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 recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, R. 11, the District

Court must “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it

enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” The undersigned

recommends that, should the Report and Recommendation be adopted

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/10/10 Page 5 of 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

-6-

and, should Petitioner seek a certificate of appealability, a

certificate of appealability should be denied because Petitioner

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.A § 2253(c)(2).

DATED this 10th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/10/10 Page 6 of 6