Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00874/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00874-0/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

KURT ADAM OLDENBURG, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 10-00874 PHX PGR MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

OFFICE, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

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

1983 on April 19, 2010, alleging Defendants are liable to him

for violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights while

incarcerated. On May 18, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint

with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on or about

July 22, 2010. See Doc. 10. On August 19, 2010, Plaintiff

moved for leave to file a first amended complaint and lodged a

pleading captioned as a first amended complaint. See Doc. 13 &

Doc. 14. The pleading at Doc. 14 is identical to the pleading

at Doc. 10. 

Case 2:10-cv-00874-PGR Document 28 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 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

-2-

In an order docketed September 30, 2010, the Court

ordered that the amended complaint lodged at Doc. 14 be

docketed. The pleading was docketed on September 30, 2010, as

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. See Doc. 16. 

In the order issued September 30 the Court dismissed

Count II of the amended complaint without prejudice. The Court

further dismissed as defendants Richard Friedman, Medical

Provider CH 718, Unknown Mahdi, and Unknown Lucky, without

prejudice. The Court ordered Defendants Maricopa County, Brock,

Stapley, Kunasek, Wilson, and Wilcox to answer Count I of the

second amended complaint and ordered Defendants Michaels and

Arpaio to answer Count III.

Defendants sent waivers of service on or about October

20, 2010, which waivers were docketed on November 16, 2010. See

Doc. 18-25.

On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend

his complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add five additional claims to

the complaint and to add defendants. See Doc. 26. Plaintiff

also simultaneously filed a motion seeking “an indefinite stay

suspending all judicial proceedings.” Doc. 27.

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). 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

Case 2:10-cv-00874-PGR Document 28 Filed 12/10/10 Page 2 of 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

-3-

Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation

omitted).

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended

complaint is not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.

Such a complaint would be the fourth complaint filed in this

matter, although two of the complaints are identical. Plaintiff

seeks to add additional defendants and claims, some of which

have previously been dismissed. Although Defendants have not

yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, adding

additional causes of action and defendants at this time would

further prolong these proceedings by requiring service of

additional defendants. Litigating events which have transpired

subsequent to the filing of the served complaint would only

complicate the efficient litigation of the screened claims.

Additionally, Plaintiff now seeks to stay this matter

until his release from incarceration.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to amend his

complaint (Doc. 26) 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 fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

Case 2:10-cv-00874-PGR Document 28 Filed 12/10/10 Page 3 of 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

-4-

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

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 2:10-cv-00874-PGR Document 28 Filed 12/10/10 Page 4 of 4