Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02451/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02451-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernie Pete Ortega, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2451-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts Three

and Five of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Dkt.#31.), Plaintiff’s Motion for De Novo

Review of Counts Six and Seven in the Amended Complaint, (Dkt.#33.), Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint, (Dkt.#48.), and Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin’s Report and

Recommendation. (Dkt.#55.) After reviewing the record and determining oral argument

unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo and

the factual analysis de novo for those facts to which objections are filed, and for clear error

for those facts to which no objections are filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 77 Filed 08/20/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2008, Plaintiff Ernie Pete Ortega, pro se, filed a First Amended

Complaint against the instant Defendants asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

October 1, 2008, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendant Hewitt’s Motion for a Screening Order. In

adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, this Court ordered that Counts I, II and

IV in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, that Defendant

Hewitt answer Counts III and V, that Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens answer

Count V, and that Defendant Durrenburg answer Counts VII and VIII. Defendants then

moved to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, to which Plaintiff responded by

filing a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint while simultaneously lodging a proposed

Second Amended Complaint. 

On April 3, 2009, Magistrate Judge Guerin issued another R&R which recommended

granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and the District Court not permit additional

amendments. The Magistrate Judge also screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

and recommend (1) dismissing Count VI in its entirety, (2) dismissing from the case

Defendants Dora B. Schriro, Zaborski, Kimble, Weerts, Marrow, Littleton, Gordon,

Grabowski, Matthews, Camacho, Haar, Haggie, Russell, Dankek, O’Connor, Sheridan,

Woods, Scott, Cooper, #2818 and unidentified John Doe officers, (3) directing the Clerk

of the Court to send Plaintiff a service packet, summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Sikori, Childs, Provencio, Henderson, Antonelli and Carrillo, (4) ordering

Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora, Owens, Sikori, Childs, Provencio and Henderson to answer

or otherwise respond to Count II, (5) ordering Defendant Durrenberg to answer or otherwise

respond to Counts III and IV, (6) ordering Defendants Antonelli and Carrillo to answer or

otherwise respond to Count V, and (7) Construing Defendant Hewitt’s Motion to Dismiss

Counts III and V of the First Amended Complaint as a Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of

the Second Amended Complaint, as the allegations against Defendant Hewitt remain

essentially the same. 

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 77 Filed 08/20/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

On April 24, 2009, Plaintiff lodged objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

ANALYSIS

The Court first notes that it will adopt the portions of Magistrate Judge Guerin’s R&R

that were not objected to by the Parties. The only remaining issues therefore concern the

portions of the R&R for which there are objections. Plaintiff has objected to several aspects

of the R&R. First, Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that he not be permitted further

amendments. Next, Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of Count VI, as well as the dismissal of

Defendants Provencio, Weerts and Kimble from Count IV of the Second Amended

Complaint. Lastly, Plaintiff asks the Court to permit him to include Corrections Officers

Zaborski, Kimble and Kluff as Defendants under Count I of the Second Amended Complaint.

Turning to the substance of Plaintiff objections, the Court notes that it agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his

Complaint for a third time. This case was filed in December 2007 and it is rapidly

approaching the two year mark. In the interests of judicial economy and fairness to the

named Defendants, Plaintiffs case must begin to proceed forward without the potential delays

that might be caused by any future amendments.

With respect to the dismissal of Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint, the

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim

for retaliation under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As the

Magistrate Judge correctly noted, there is nothing in Count VI that specifically ties the

proposed Defendants to any alleged unconstitutional conduct. Instead of asserting concrete

allegations against specific Defendants, Count VI appears to contain nothing more than an

assortment of vague and generalized allegations that are raised against no individual

Defendant in particular. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule

8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 77 Filed 08/20/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

The Court will next address the Magistrate Judge’s determination regarding Count IV

of the Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Guerin recommended that

Plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Provencio, Weerts and

Kimble claim for being allegedly denied a grievance form to complain about an incident

involving Defendant Durrenburg. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge on this point

of law. A prisoner does not have a protected liberty interest in prison grievance procedures,

and the mere denial of a grievance does not give rise to the inference of active

unconstitutional behavior. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), cert.

denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988).

Furthermore, the Court will not accept Plaintiff’s suggestion to permit him to add

Corrections Officers Zaborski, Kimble and Kluff as Defendants under Count I of the Second

Amended Complaint.

Lastly, it should be noted that under Ninth Circuit law, after amendment the original

pleading is treated as nonexistent. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

Thus, the Court declines to construe Defendant Hewitt’s Motion to Dismiss Counts III and

V of the First Amended Complaint as a Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Second

Amended Complaint. In other words, the original 12(b)(6) motion filed by Defendants will

be treated as moot and there will be another opportunity to file Rule 12 motions and a

responsive pleading.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting as the Order of the Court the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation, to the extent it is consistent with the instant Court

Order. (Dkt. #55.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Counts Three and Five of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Dkt.#31.)

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 77 Filed 08/20/09 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for De Novo

Review of Counts Six and Seven in the Amended Complaint. (Dkt.#33.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint. (Dkt.#48.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Status as moot.

(Dkt.#74.)

DATED this 19th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 77 Filed 08/20/09 Page 5 of 5