Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00406-2/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

FORREST JUAN CRADDOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-00406 PHX ROS (MEA)

) 

SHERIFF CHRIS VASQUEZ, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

et al., ) 

)

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. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

(C).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions at Docket

No. 60, filed February 4, 2008, Docket No. 81, filed May 22,

2008, and Docket No. 88, filed June 13, 2008, each seeking to

again amend his complaint.

I Procedural background

Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated by the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint on

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 10
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- 

February 22, 2007, alleging Defendants violated his federal

constitutional rights while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the

Pinal County Jail. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on

April 13, 2007. See Docket No. 5. Plaintiff filed a second

amended complaint on July 13, 2007. See Docket No. 15. 

The second amended complaint alleged that, on

February 21 through February 27, 2007, Dr. Lizarraga and other

medical staff at the Pinal County Jail failed to follow the

medical orders of a Dr. Trudeau regarding the post-surgical

treatment of Plaintiff’s hand, and that the named Defendants

did not provide Plaintiff with medication for his pain as

prescribed. See Docket No. 15. Plaintiff further alleged the

Pinal Count Jail medical staff were negligent regarding his

medical care beginning on November 24, 2006, through March of

2007.

On August 13, 2007, the Court ordered Defendant

Lizarraga to answer Plaintiff’s claim that he violated

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him

with adequate medical care during Plaintiff’s incarceration at

the Pinal County Jail. See Docket No. 16. Specifically, the

Court ordered Defendant Lizarraga to answer the claim he was

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs

by delaying a second surgery on Plaintiff’s hand. See Docket

No. 16. At that time the Court dismissed the other defendants

named in the second amended complaint and dismissed

Plaintiff’s claims of negligence by state officials and a

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 10
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 The order states: “Count I (in part) and Defendants Vasquez,

Brown, Celis, Jackson and Pinal County nurses Nancy, Edna, Lisa and

Bob are dismissed without prejudice.”

-3- 

claim of supervisory liability.1 

The screening order states:

Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that

Defendants were negligent with respect to

caring for his injured right hand following

a surgery performed by Dr. Trudeau at the

Maricopa County Medical Center.

Specifically, he alleges the Defendants

were negligent in treating his injured

hand, scheduling the initial surgery for

the hand, changing dressings on his hand

and in providing prescribed pain

medications. Plaintiff alleges as a result

that he developed an infection of the

injured hand and was rushed to Maricopa

County Medical Center on March 17, 2007.

(Id. at 6-I.) He indicates that a second

surgery on his hand is required to restore

function to his injured fingers, but that

Dr. Lizarraga has deliberately delayed that

surgery so that Pinal County will not have

to bear the expense. (Id. at 6-I, 6-J.)

Despite Plaintiff’s numerous other

allegations, he expressly states that the

only claim that he wishes to pursue is Dr.

Lizarraga’s deliberate delay in providing

the second surgery for his hand. (Id. at

6-J-6-K.)

Docket No. 16 at 2 (emphasis added).

Defendant Lizarraga was served and filed an answer to

the second amended complaint on October 9, 2007. See Docket

No. 18. A scheduling order was issued October 11, 2007,

requiring Plaintiff to file any motion to amend his complaint

by November 30, 2007. See Docket No. 20.

On November 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to

dismiss his second amended complaint, asking the Court’s

permission to do this so that he could file an amended

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 3 of 10
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- 

complaint again naming Defendant Lizarraga and naming other

defendants previously dismissed from this matter. See Docket

No. 31. That same day Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend

his complaint. See Docket No. 32. Plaintiff also filed a

motion for summary judgment against all defendants named in

his lodged proposed third amended complaint. See Docket No.

37. Plaintiff also filed, from November 28 through December

4, 2007, inter alia, twelve separate motions to amend his

complaint. See Docket Nos. 40-52. 

The scheduling order in this matter issued October

11, 2007, required all motions to amend the complaint be filed

by November 30, 2007. See Docket No. 20. In a Report and

Recommendation issued January 17, 2008, the undersigned noted

the only motion to amend Plaintiff’s complaint which was then

timely filed was the one filed November 15, 2007, at Docket

No. 32. See Docket No. 56. The undersigned recommended the

motion at Docket No. 32 be granted in part and denied in part.

The undersigned recommended the motion be denied insofar as it

sought to add Sheriff Vasquez and Mr. Celis as defendants and

that the motion be denied insofar as it attempted to add

claims premised on negligence. The undersigned further

recommended that the motion be granted to the extent that

Plaintiff sought to assert an Eighth Amendment deliberate

indifference claim regarding his medical treatment by Dr.

Lizarraga, Elke Johnson, “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse

Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna.” The undersigned recommended that

the Court order the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office to provide

the last names of the nurses who worked at the jail on

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 4 of 10
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- 

February 21 through February 27, 2007, to the extent any of

these nurses could be shown to be “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse Lisa,”

“Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna.”

Subsequent to the issuance of the Report and

Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his

complaint at Docket No. 60, on February 4, 2008. On February

26, 2008, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation with

modifications. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion at Docket

No. 32 to amend his complaint, i.e., to file a Third Amended

Complaint, to allow him to assert an Eighth Amendment

deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Lizarraga,

Elke Johnson, and Nurses Bob, Lisa, Nancy, and Edna. See

Docket No. 66. The Third Amended Complaint was filed at

Docket No. 67. Defendant Lizarraga filed an answer to the

third amended complaint on March 11, 2008, and Defendant

Jackson was served with the complaint on or about March 10,

2008. See Docket No. 76. On April 30, 2008, the undersigned

issued a scheduling order with regard to the claims stated in

the Third Amended Complaint, requiring discovery in this

matter to be completed by August 28, 2008. The undersigned

notes that Defendant Jackson has filed a motion to dismiss the

claims against her, which is still pending before the Court.

After Defendant Jackson filed her motion to dismiss,

Plaintiff filed another motion to amend his complaint on May

22, 2008. See Docket No. 81. Plaintiff also filed a pending

motion for leave to file a lodged proposed amended complaint,

on June 13, 2008. See Docket No. 88. Defendant Lizarraga has

taken “no position” with regard to the motions for leave to

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 5 of 10
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- 

file an amended complaint at Docket No. 81 and Docket No. 88.

See Docket No. 82 & Docket No. 86. 

II Analysis

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). “Thus

Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be

applied with extreme liberality. This policy is applied even

more liberally to pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832

F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations and

quotations omitted).

When 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)). Leave to amend a complaint should be

granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can

correct a defect in his complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 6 of 10
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

-7- 

However, in exercising its discretion with regard to

a motion to amend a complaint filed after a responsive

pleading, the Court should consider the prejudice to the

opposing party and the futility of allowing the amendment.

See Schlachter-Jones v. General Tele., 936 F.2d 435, 443-44

(9th Cir. 1991). “[T]he policy of allowing the amendments of

pleadings must be tempered with considerations of undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of

allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." Id.

at 443 (internal quotations omitted). The Court would

eventually have to dismiss a claim added to a complaint if the

plaintiff raised a claim that was legally frivolous or

malicious, that failed to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that sought monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(c)(1) (2003 &

Supp. 2007).

The motion to amend the Third Amended Complaint at

Docket No. 60 is not timely filed nor is it in the appropriate

form nor is it accompanied by a lodged proposed amended

complaint in the appropriate form. Additionally, the pleading

at Docket No. 60 contains numerous places where information is

lined-through and the pleading rather incoherently reiterates

allegations stated in the Third Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, this motion should be denied.

The motion to amend at Docket No. 81 is captioned as

“Plaintiff for motion” and seeks to amend Plaintiff’s second

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 7 of 10
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

-8- 

amended complaint, which has now been superceded, and also

seeks to counter Defendant Jackson’s claim that Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly,

because the motion is not a proposed amended complaint and the

facts stated are in regard to the motion to dismiss and not

the claims stated in the Third Amended Complaint, the motion

should be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended

complaint at Docket No. 88 is captioned as a “Request to

Motion” and seeks leave to amend the complaint lodged at

Docket No. 33. Plaintiff’s motion at Docket No. 88 seeks to

change his claims based on negligence to claims based on the

defendants’ deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

However, as noted supra, the deadline for amending his

complaint has long-since passed and the motion is actually one

seeking reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of some of

his claims at Docket No. 56. 

The motion at Docket No. 88 is not accompanied by a

lodged complaint and only states that the Court misinterpreted

his claims as based on negligence rather than alleging

deliberate indifference. Plaintiff does not seek to add new

factual allegations or a new basis for a claim for relief but

seeks to re-cast his claims to meet the necessary legal

standard, more than one year after filing his original

complaint. Cf. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385,

1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding the denial of leave to amend

because the plaintiff had delayed filing the amended complaint

for eight months beyond the time they should have known of the

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 8 of 10
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

-9- 

existence of the claims and noting that “[p]rejudice to the

opposing party is the most important factor” in determining

whether to grant leave to amend); Duggins v. Steak ‘N Shake,

Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (upholding denial of

leave to amend where the District Court cited the plaintiff’s

undue delay in missing the deadline to amend the complaint and

undue prejudice to the defendant where the plaintiff sought

amendment after the close of discovery); Smith v. Angelone,

111 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating that “a motion to

amend may be denied when it has been unduly delayed and when

allowing the motion would prejudice the nonmovant”).

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions at Docket

No. 60, Docket No. 81 and Docket No. 88 all 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,

the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response

to the objections. 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. ReynaCase 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 9 of 10
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

-10- 

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 900 (2003). 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 15th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 109 Filed 07/16/08 Page 10 of 10