Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02218/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02218-0/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

PHILLIP TOTHEROW, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIV 07-02218 PHX PGR (MEA)

v. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DORA SCHRIRO, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

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. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

(C). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to add/join

parties at Docket No. 31. 

Plaintiff is incarcerated by the Arizona Department

of Corrections. Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint on

November 14, 2007, naming Dora Schriro, the Arizona Department

of Corrections (“ADOC”), and members of the ADOC Board of

Institutional Protectional Committee as defendants. On

January 18, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 49 Filed 02/09/09 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- 

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with

leave to amend. 

On February 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint naming Herb Haley and Benny Rollins as defendants

and alleging these defendants failed to protect him from

attacks by other inmates in 2001 and 2006. At that time

Plaintiff was housed in the Special Management Unit of the

ADOC Eyman Complex in Florence, Arizona. The amended

complaint sought only injunctive relief. Plaintiff also filed

a motion seeking a temporary restraining order on March 10,

2008, asking to be placed in protective segregation. See

Docket No. 9. 

On March 31, 2008, Plaintiff filed a change of

address with the Court, indicating he has been moved to the

Stiner Unit of the ADOC Lewis facility in Buckeye, Arizona.

On April 2, 2008, the Court ordered Defendants Haley and

Rollins to answer Count I, the only count, of Plaintiff’s

amended complaint.

Defendants Haley and Rollins waived service and filed

an answer to the amended complaint on June 30, 2008. See

Docket No. 15. On July 2, 2008, the Court ordered any motion

to add parties or to further amend the complaint be filed by

September 5, 2008.

On September 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion

[Docket No. 19] for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff did not lodge a proposed amended complaint.

Plaintiff asked for leave to amend his complaint to add a “2nd

count of failure to protect with deliberate [indifference] a

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 49 Filed 02/09/09 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- 

violation of Plaintiffs 8th Amendment Rights.” Docket No. 19.

Plaintiff also sought to amend his prayer for relief to

include a monetary award, i.e., “any and all court fees and

cost [incurred].” Id. Plaintiff also sought to amend his

complaint to include a prayer for injunctive relief “in form

of [permanent] protective [segregation]” to alleviate

conditions “that pose any further risk now or in future.” Id.

In his motion Plaintiff stated the factual and legal predicate

for “Count Two,” an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim

against Defendant Rollins and Haley regarding events occurring

on March 25, 2008. Id. Defendants opposed the motion to

amend. See Docket No. 21. 

The Court granted the motion to amend in an order

filed October 3, 2008. See Docket No. 22. The Court

concluded Plaintiff proposed to amend his complaint to allege

causes of action based on an event occurring in 2008.

Plaintiff alleged the event occurring in 2008 was the result

of Defendants’ acts in failing to place Plaintiff in

protective segregation in 2007. The Court noted the time for

completing discovery in this matter had not passed and that

Defendants Haley and Rollins would not be substantially

prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint and

that the proposed amendments were not clearly frivolous. The

Court’s order gave Plaintiff until October 31, 2008, to file a

second amended complaint which did not incorporate by

reference his prior complaints and which incorporated only

those claims and facts included in Plaintiff’s proposed

amendments in the pleading at Docket No. 19. 

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 49 Filed 02/09/09 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- 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October

20, 2008, naming Herb Haley, Protective Segregation

Administrator, Benny Rollins, Deputy Director of Prison

Operations, and Dora Schriro, Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections, as Defendants. See Docket No. 27.

The Second Amended Complaint alleged violations of Plaintiff’s

rights at the Lewis Complex-Stiner, and Florence Complex,

Central. Plaintiff alleged that, inter alia, because

Defendants denied his request for protective custody on March

25, 2008, Plaintiff was threatened by other inmates on June 6,

2008.

On October 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “motion to

add/join parties.” See Docket No. 31. Defendants Haley and

Rollins filed a response in opposition to this motion on

November 4, 2008. See Docket No. 33. Defendants also filed a

substitution of defendants, pursuant to Rule 25(d), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, through their counsel, on November

3, 2008. Additionally, on October 28, 2008, Defendants Haley

and Rollins filed a motion for a screening order with regard

to the second amended complaint. 

On November 25, 2008, the Court screened the Second

Amended Complaint and ordered only Defendants Haley and

Rollins to answer the claims stated in the Second Amended

Complaint. These Defendants answered the Second Amended

Complaint on December 24, 2008. Discovery in this matter was

to be completed by December 8, 2008. See Docket No. 16.

Dispositive motions are to be filed by February 13, 2009. Id.

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 49 Filed 02/09/09 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- 

Plaintiff’s motion at Docket No. 31 seeks to add Ivan

Bartos as a defendant because “Mr. Bartos is now decision

maker in my current protection issues...” Plaintiff believes

Mr. Bartos will deny him protective segregation as punishment

for Plaintiff bringing this suit. Plaintiff states that Mr.

Bartos is replacing Mr. Rollins as Director of Operations.

Defendants assert that Mr. Bartos is not Mr. Rollins’

successor at this position, but that Mr. Rollins’ successor is

James Branch. Defendants also note that Plaintiff alleges Mr.

Bartos may harm Plaintiff in the future, a frivolous claim.

Because the claim alleged by Plaintiff as a basis for joining

Mr. Bartos as a party to this matter is frivolous, i.e., the

allegation of future harm, Plaintiff’s motion to add Mr.

Bartos as a Defendant should be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at Docket

No. 31 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 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,

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 49 Filed 02/09/09 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- 

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

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 6th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 49 Filed 02/09/09 Page 6 of 6