Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02218/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02218-1/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, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-02218 PHX PGR (MEA)

) 

DORA SCHRIRO, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

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).

Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated by the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint on

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

of Corrections, and members of the Board of Institutional

Protectional Committee as defendants. On January 18, 2008,

the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 60 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 3
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- 

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. On April 2, 2008,

the Court ordered Defendants Haley and Rollins to answer Count

I of Plaintiff’s amended complaint at Docket No. 8. The Court

denied Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief without

prejudice. 

Defendants 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.

Plaintiff filed a motion [Docket No. 19] for leave to

file an amended complaint on September 4, 2008. Plaintiff

did not lodge a proposed amended complaint. In an order

issued October 3, 2008, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

October 31, 2008, to file a second amended complaint. The

Second Amended Complaint was filed October 20, 2008. In an

order issued November 25, 2008, the Court ordered Defendants

to answer the claims stated in the Second Amended Complaint. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 11,

2009. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss and

a motion [Docket No. 56] for leave to amend his Second Amended

Complaint on March 16, 2009. Defendants oppose the motion for

leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint.

The scheduling order required all motions to join

parties or to further amend pleadings be filed by September 5,

2008. Plaintiff has filed two amended complaints since his

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 60 Filed 04/14/09 Page 2 of 3
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- 

original complaint was filed. A dispositive motion is

pending.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file an amended complaint which adds additional parties and

claims for relief be denied.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02218-PGR Document 60 Filed 04/14/09 Page 3 of 3