Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00406-1/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

SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Forrest Juan Craddock, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheriff Chris Vasquez, et al.

Defendants, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. CV 07-0406-PHX-ROS (MEA) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Forrest Juan Craddock filed this pro se civil rights action alleging deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need (Doc. #1). The Court dismissed the Complaint and

the First Amended Complaint (Doc. ##3, 14). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint;

the Court ordered service on Defendant Lizarraga and dismissed the remaining Defendants

(Doc. ##15, 16). Plaintiff then filed motions to dismiss his case and amend his complaint

(Doc. ##31, 32). He also filed a series of additional motions to amend his complaint (Doc.

##40-45 and ##47-52) and a motion for summary judgment (Doc. #37). 

Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation addressing Plaintiff’s motions

is now before the Court (Doc. #56). The Report and Recommendation recommends granting

in part the motion to amend (Doc. #32) insofar as the proposed Third Amended Complaint

(Doc. #33) asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Lizarraga,

Elke Johnson, “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna” and denying

the motion insofar as the proposed Third Amended Complaint raises claims of negligence

and seeks to add Sheriff Vasquez and Mr. Celis as Defendants. The Report and

Recommendation also recommends denying the remaining motions to amend, the request to

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 66 Filed 02/26/08 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 -

make the case a “test” case, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, and denying without prejudice

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. #60). Although most of the document appears

to attempt to merely supplement or explain allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, the

Court will construe the references to Sheriff Vasquez and Mr. Celis as objections to the

Report and Recommendation. Because Plaintiff filed timely objections, the Court reviews

de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b) (“[t]he district judge . . . shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion

of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made”). 

Plaintiff asserts that “Count II should be Sheriff Chris Vasquez” (Doc. #60 at 1). But

Count II of the Third Amended Complaint does not refer to Vasquez or any action or

omission by Vasquez (Doc. #33 at 4). To state a valid claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and

show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). In addition, there is no respondeat superior

liability under § 1983, and, therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who

allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. New

York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The Third Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against

Vasquez, and the Court will dismiss Vasquez.

With regard to Celis the grievance officer, Plaintiff asserts in his objection that Celis

did not help resolve the issues, did not give Plaintiff his portion of copies of grievances or

return some grievance documents, did not stop the deliberate indifference by telling nurses

to change bandages, and did not take it upon himself to tell the nurses that Plaintiff had not

received his medication (Doc. #60 at 2). The Report and Recommendation correctly notes

that “[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance procedure,” Mann

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 66 Filed 02/26/08 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

If service cannot be made at this time and Plaintiff cannot obtain the addresses

through discovery, the Court can order the County Attorney to obtain and provide names

under seal.

- 3 -

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), and it does not appear that Celis was himself

involved in providing medical care. Without a federal constitutional right, there is no

cognizable claim under § 1983, and the allegations do not adequately link Celis’s conduct

to the harm. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. Moreover, although the right of

meaningful access to the courts extends to established prison grievance procedures, Bradley

v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995), in his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did

not allege facts regarding refusal to return grievance documents, and Plaintiff did not claim

any actual harm as a result of Celis’s alleged conduct. The right of access to the courts

requires an allegation that Plaintiff suffered “actual injury” as a result of the denial of the

grievance. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). To show actual injury, the

plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct of the defendant prevented him from bringing to

court a nonfrivolous claim in a direct or collateral attack on his sentence or a challenge to the

conditions of his confinement. Id. at 352-53, 355. The Third Amended Complaint fails to

state a claim against Celis, and the Court will dismiss him.

 The Court has reviewed Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation and hereby

incorporates and adopts it with a minor modification. The Report recommends that the Pinal

County Sheriff’s Office be directed to provide the last names of the nurse Defendants and

that service be ordered thereafter. The Court notes that the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office is

not a party to this action and Plaintiff may be able to provide sufficient identifying

information to serve the nurse Defendants.1

 Furthermore, Plaintiff has complete names for

Defendants Dr. Lizarraga and Elke Johnson. Therefore, the Court will order service now.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey (Doc. #56) is

adopted as modified by this Order. 

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 66 Filed 02/26/08 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 -

(2) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s motion to

amend the Complaint (Doc. #32) and the motion is granted insofar as the proposed Third

Amended Complaint (Doc. #33) asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate- indifference claim

against Dr. Lizarraga, Elke Johnson, “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse

Edna” and denied insofar as the proposed Third Amended Complaint raises claims of

negligence and seeks to add Sheriff Vasquez and Mr. Celis as Defendants. 

(3) The Clerk of Court must file the proposed Third Amended Complaint, now lodged

as Document #33.

(4) Defendants Vasquez and Celis, Count VII, and the claims for negligence are

dismissed.

(5) Defendants Lizarraga, Elke Johnson, “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse

Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna” must answer the remaining allegations in Counts I through VI and

Count VIII. 

(6) Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint (Doc. ##40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 and

##47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52) are denied.

(7) Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #31) is denied as moot.

(8) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #37) is denied without prejudice.

(9) The Clerk of Court must send counsel of record for Defendant Lizarraga a copy

of the Third Amended Complaint and this Order.

(10) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Third

Amended Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Elke Johnson, “Nurse Bob,” “Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna.”

(11) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within

20 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(12) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete

service of the Summons and Third Amended Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 66 Filed 02/26/08 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 -

the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later,

the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(13) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Third

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(14) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants Johnson, “Nurse Bob,”

“Nurse Lisa,” “Nurse Nancy,” and “Nurse Edna of the commencement of this action and

request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this Order. The Marshal must

immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and waivers of

service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a Defendant

within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the Marshal

must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Third Amended Complaint, and

this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; and

(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the

summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, Third Amended Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new

process receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be

taxed against the personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(15) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Third

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 66 Filed 02/26/08 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 -

not the Plaintiff.

 (16) Defendants must answer the Third Amended Complaint or otherwise respond

by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(17) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(18) This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Aspey pursuant to Rules 72.1

and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 25th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00406-ROS Document 66 Filed 02/26/08 Page 6 of 6