Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020-3/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 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samuel Louis Fuller, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kari Jill Granville, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-00020-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller, who is currently confined in Maricopa County 

Fourth Avenue Jail, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Doc. 41.) Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s “Full Adversary Hearing pursuant 

to Rule 611(b) Fed R. of Evid.” (Doc. 120), which is construed as a motion seeking a 

preliminary injunction; (2) the portion of Plaintiff’s “Intervene, Intervene, Intervene!!! 

9/11” (Doc. 126), which seeks injunctive relief1

; and (3) “Plaintiff’s Request to Conduct 

Jail House Depositions of a Prisoner” (Doc. 128), which the Magistrate Judge construed 

as a motion seeking injunctive relief (see Doc. 135). 

 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motions. 

I. Background 

 On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff 

stated an excessive force claim in Count II against Defendant Hadsall and directed 

 

1

 The Magistrate Judge previously denied that part of Plaintiff’s Motion that 

sought to supplement his First Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 129.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 151 Filed 11/10/15 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 

Defendant Hadsall to answer. (Doc. 40.) The Court dismissed the remaining claims and 

Defendants. (Id.) 

II. Plaintiff’s “Full Adversary Hearing pursuant to Rule 611(b) Fed R. of Evid.” 

 (Doc. 120) 

In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hadsall used excessive force on 

Plaintiff due to policies instituted by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County 

Sherriff’s Office (MCSO). Plaintiff specifically objects to that part of a policy which 

allows an officer “to balance the need to control the subject against the intrusion or 

impact of the capture.” (Doc. 120 at 5.) Plaintiff argues that the “use of force policy” 

should not be used on closed custody inmates with serious mental illness.” (Id. at 7.) 

Plaintiff also asserts that the force used on him goes against the policy and procedure 

governing use of force. (Id. at 10.) In the remainder of his Motion, Plaintiff appears to 

attempt to prove that the force that Defendant Hadsall used against him was “excessive.” 

(Id. at 1-12.) It is unclear what injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks because the last three 

pages of Plaintiff’s Motion were not filed with the Court. (See Doc. 120 at 12 (showing 

that last page before exhibits is “12 of 15.”)) In his Reply, Plaintiff asserts that he seeks a 

preliminary injunction preventing “detention officers at the jail from violating their own 

regulations.” (Doc. 131 at 3.) 

 Because the Court does not have the last three pages of Plaintiff’s motion, the 

Court cannot ascertain the full relief that Plaintiff seeks from the Court. The Court notes, 

however, that Plaintiff’s requests for relief appear to be premised on policy, practice, and 

custom claims that are not alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Because the relief 

Plaintiff seeks appears to exceed the scope of his First Amended Complaint, the Court 

does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff such relief. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 

F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must 

establish a relationship between the claimed injury and the conduct asserted in the 

complaint). Moreover, Plaintiff appears to seek an injunction against Sheriff Arpaio and 

all detention officers at the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, none of whom is a 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 151 Filed 11/10/15 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 

defendant in this action. A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where 

the non-party acts in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 65(d)(2) (a preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by 

personal service or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, 

and persons in active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A 

federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 

persons not before the court.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 

395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969). Plaintiff has not established that the Court has jurisdiction to 

issue an injunction against the Sheriff and all officers at the Maricopa County Fourth 

Avenue Jail. 

 Because the scope of relief that Plaintiff seeks is unclear, because Plaintiff appears 

to seek relief outside the scope of his First Amended Complaint, and because Plaintiff 

seeks relief against non-parties, his “Full Adversary Hearing pursuant to Rule 611(b) Fed 

R. of Evid.” will be denied. 

III. Plaintiff’s “Intervene, Intervene, Intervene!!! 9/11” (Doc. 126) 

 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the Inmate Legal Service Division at the 

Fourth Avenue Jail (“I.L.S.”). (Doc. 126.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Hadsall is in 

“active concert” with I.L.S. because, in response to interrogatories, Defendant Hadsall 

responded that “as a sergeant he does give orders to officers, who are expected to obey 

reasonable and legal orders,” and that part of his duties include scanning Inmate Legal 

Request forms to see whether there is an urgent matter and then forwarding the form to 

Inmate Legal Services. (Doc. 126 at 22, 27.) 

 Plaintiff asserts that I.L.S. has retaliated against him for his claims against 

Defendant Hadsall by (1) “interfering” with Plaintiff “contacting officers of the court,” 

(2) depriving Plaintiff of the right to “publish his litigation,” and (3) “subverting” 

“plaintiff’s request for intervention and or relief through institutional grievance process 

and is harassment today.” (Doc. 126 at 4). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that I.L.S. has 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 151 Filed 11/10/15 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 

refused to forward correspondence to certain lawyers and investigators. (Id. at 5-9.) 

Plaintiff requests an Order to “direct[,] instruct[,] or order Inmate Legal Services to 

maintain their Rules and Regulations Guidelines for Pro Per Inmate” and that Plaintiff be 

permitted without interference to communicate with officers of the Court. (Id. at 126 at 

12-13.) 

 Based on the exhibits attached to his Motion, Plaintiff’s argument appears to be 

that he should not be charged for postage and copying with respect to letters he submits 

to attorneys through I.L.S. Plaintiff objects to Inmate Legal Services’ rejection of free 

postage and copying on the basis that Plaintiff is not represented by any of the attorneys 

to whom he wishes to send mail.2

 The Court does not agree with Plaintiff that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories show that Defendant is acting in concert with I.L.S. such that the Court 

would have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against I.L.S. in this case. Contrary to 

Plaintiff’s assertions, Defendant’s responses do not indicate that he has had any contact 

with I.L.S. in determining whether Plaintiff’s correspondence is legal mail, and Plaintiff 

has not shown that I.L.S. is otherwise acting in concert with Defendant Hadsall or 

retaliating against Plaintiff for filing this action. Accordingly, the Court does not have 

jurisdiction to issue the injunction requested by Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 

complaints about I.L.S. exceed the scope of the First Amended Complaint and do not 

implicate Plaintiff’s ability to access the court in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

“Intervene, Intervene, Intervene!!! 9/11” will be denied. 

IV. Plaintiff’s Request to Conduct Jail House Depositions (Doc. 128)

 Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to interview Brian Ortiz, an inmate in the 

Fourth Avenue Jail. Plaintiff asserts that he does not want to take depositions and, thus, 

need not demonstrate that he can pay for such depositions as required by the Court’s 

 

2

 The letters not sent by I.L.S., which Plaintiff attached as exhibits to his motion, 

appear to concern Plaintiff’s criminal case and a different civil case, CV 13-1296-PHXDLR (JFM). 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 151 Filed 11/10/15 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 

Scheduling Order. Plaintiff asserts that he wants to ask Brian Ortiz about closed custody 

housing arrangements relating to ID headcounts, medication pass out, cell extractions, 

and placement by MCSO staff. Plaintiff further asserts that Ortiz was present “during the 

times of the incident here before this court” and “possess[es] material information to the 

support and attack of a claim.” (Doc. 128 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that Ortiz can testify that 

Defendant’s cell extraction did not comply with MCSO policy. (Id. at 5.) 

 Defendant responds that he does not object to the interview taking place, but 

advises the Court that Mr. Ortiz is no longer in MCSO custody and is now confined in the 

Arizona Department of Corrections. (Doc. 138 at 1.) Defendant asserts that if Plaintiff 

wants to conduct a telephonic interview with Mr. Ortiz, the jail will cooperate by making 

Plaintiff available, but Defendant asserts that the cost of the call should be borne by 

Plaintiff and not the jail. (Id. at 3.) Defendant also questions the usefulness of an 

interview, considering that it appears that Plaintiff already knows what Mr. Ortiz will say 

and the interview itself cannot be used at trial. (Id.) Defendant notes that the relevancy of 

Mr. Ortiz’s proposed testimony as to housing arrangements, headcounts, and cell 

extractions is not clear. (Id.) Additionally, Defendant asserts that, pursuant to Rule 31 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff can conduct the deposition of Mr. Ortiz 

through written questions. (Id. at 4.) Finally, Defendant asserts that the time for 

discovery has ended and Plaintiff cannot show good cause to allow a deposition at this 

late date. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his motion. 

 Plaintiff has not shown how an interview with Mr. Ortiz will assist him in this 

action. It appears that Plaintiff knows the content of Mr. Ortiz’s testimony, and an 

informal interview would not be admissible at trial. Plaintiff has not moved to depose 

Mr. Ortiz through written questions, and the discovery deadline has passed in any event. 

See Doc. 47, Scheduling Order (“All motions regarding discovery and disclosure shall be 

filed by August 28, 2015”). Plaintiff has not shown good cause why discovery should be 

reopened to permit a deposition by questions of Mr. Ortiz. See Johnson v. Mammoth 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 151 Filed 11/10/15 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 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16 permits a scheduling order 

to be modified only upon a showing of good cause by the party seeking amendment); 

Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 2006) (In the 

context of motions to reopen discovery, good cause requires the movant to show it 

“diligently pursued its previous discovery opportunities”). For the foregoing reasons, 

Plaintiff’s Request to Conduct Jail House Depositions of a Prisoner” (Doc. 128) will be 

denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Full Adversary Hearing pursuant to Rule 611(b) Fed R. of Evid. 

(Doc. 120) is denied. 

 (2) The part of Plaintiff’s “Intervene, Intervene, Intervene!!! 9/11” (Doc. 126), 

which seeks injunctive relief is denied. 

 (3) “Plaintiff’s Request to Conduct Jail House Depositions of a Prisoner” (Doc. 

128) is denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of November, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 151 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 6