Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02456/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02456-2/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

ERINEO CANO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-02456 PHX ROS (MEA)

) 

NICOLE TAYLOR, SUSAN KAZ, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MEREDITH MITSIFER, JOHN DOE )

MERTENS, DORA SCHRIRO, )

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

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).

I Procedural backgrounds

Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated by the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint on

December 4, 2007. On February 7, 2008, the Court, noting

Plaintiff has been a party to at least forty cases filed in

the Court, ordered Defendants Taylor, Kaz, Mitsifer and

Mertens to answer part of Count I of the complaint. See

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 34 Filed 08/20/08 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- 

Docket No. 4. These defendants were ordered to answer

Plaintiff’s claim that they denied him mental health treatment

while he was incarcerated at the Special Management Unit of

the Florence prison. Id.

On May 29, 2008, prior to the date any defendant was

served, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Add Claims and

Plaintiff lodged a proposed first amended complaint. See

Docket No. 19 & 20. Plaintiff also filed a motion to

supplement his first amended complaint. See Docket No. 22.

Plaintiff returned service packets to the Court for

Defendants. Service on Defendants Taylor, Kax, and Mertens

was executed on July 9, 2008. See Docket Nos. 26, 27, 28.

Service on Defendant Mitsifer was executed on August 8, 2008.

On July 16, 2008, the undersigned filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to amend his amended complaint be denied and also recommending

that his motion to supplement his amended complaint be denied

and further recommending that the amended complaint lodged as

of right be screened.

On July 23, 2008, Defendants filed a motion [Docket

No. 29] asking the Court to screen Plaintiff’s amended

complaint [Docket No. 20] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 prior

to requiring Defendants to answer the amended complaint. The

amended complaint was filed before Defendants were served with

Plaintiff’s original complaint.

II Analysis

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity, or

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 34 Filed 08/20/08 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

1

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,

that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case

at any time if the court determines that--

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

(B) the action or appeal--

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2004 & Supp. 2008). 

-3- 

against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2004 & Supp. 2008).1

In screening pro se prisoner complaints the Court is

obliged to liberally construe the complaint:

The handwritten pro se document is to be

liberally construed. ... [A] pro se

complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,”

must be held to “less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”

and can only be dismissed for failure to

state a claim if it appears “‘beyond doubt

that the plaintiff can prove no set of

facts in support of his claim which would

entitle him to relief.’” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976)

(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct.

594, 596 (1972)). 

There is no respondeat superior liability pursuant to

section 1983. To state a claim against a government official,

the civil rights plaintiff must allege how the official

individually personally participated in the constitutional

deprivation or that a governmental supervisory official was

aware of the widespread abuses and acted with deliberate

indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights or

failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. See

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 34 Filed 08/20/08 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- 

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).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint names the same

defendants as his original complaint, with the addition of

naming the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections,

Dora Schriro, as a defendant. The first amended complaint

alleges the violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights

by Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with adequate

mental health care while incarcerated at the Special

Management Units of the Arizona Department of Corrections’

prison. Plaintiff also asserts his First Amendment right to

the free exercise of his religion was violated by individuals

identified as Henderson, Kelley, Childs, “Richard Row, Joe

Blow and Schriro.” Plaintiff also asserts he has been denied

his right to access the courts.

Plaintiff has not met the standard for asserting

liability on the part of Director Schriro with regard to the

mental health care provided by Defendants Taylor, Kaz,

Mertens, and Mitsifer as alleged in the standing count of

Petitioner’s complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned

recommends that Director Schriro be dismissed as a defendant

and that she not be required to answer the amended complaint.

Count II and Count III of the amended complaint state

claims completely separate from the claim the defendants were

ordered to answer, and the first amended complaint does not

name as defendants the individuals specified in the body of

the complaint with regard to Count II and Count III, i.e.,

Plaintiff’s free exercise and access to the courts claims. 

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 34 Filed 08/20/08 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- 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s proposed amended

complaint involves different events than those involved in

this suit and the proposed additional claims for relief allege

actions by individuals who have not been named as defendants

in this suit, i.e., Defendants Mitsifer, Mertens, Kaz, and

Taylor, the undersigned recommends that Count II and Count III

of Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Count II and Count

III of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed

without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Dora Schriro be

dismissed with regard to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims

and that she be dismissed as a Defendant in this matter.

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. 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

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 34 Filed 08/20/08 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- 

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. ReynaTapia, 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.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 34 Filed 08/20/08 Page 6 of 6