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

Ernie Pete Ortega,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-2451-PHX-MHM (JCG)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint filed by

Plaintiff on March 11, 2009. (Doc. No. 48.) Defendants did not file a response to the

Motion. The Magistrate recommends that the Motion for Leave to Amend be granted; the

Magistrate has also screened the Proposed Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and recommends that portions of the Proposed Second Amended

Complaint be dismissed. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2007, Plaintiff Ernie Pete Ortega, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s second

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on April 15, 2008. (Doc. No. 13.) On that same

date, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), ordered

Defendant Hewitt to answer Count Two of the Plaintiff’s original Complaint, and dismissed

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 1 of 7
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 First Amended Complaint was filed without Plaintiff’s signature. On July 29,

2008, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to complete and return a certificate form

certifying that Plaintiff’s signature on the form shall serve as an original signature on the First

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff returned the certificate form on August 19, 2008.

2

the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. (Id.)

On May 13, 2008, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.1

 (Doc. No. 14.)

Pursuant to Rule 15(1)(A), Plaintiff was entitled to amend his Complaint as of right because

Defendant Hewitt had not yet filed a responsive pleading. Defendant Hewitt was served on

July 14, 2008. (Doc. No. 15.) 

On July 17, 2008, Defendant Hewitt filed a Motion for Screening Order, requesting

that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and

that Defendant Hewitt be relieved of any requirement to file a responsive pleading to the First

Amended Complaint until a new screening order is issued. (Doc. No. 16.) On August 22,

2008, the Magistrate issued a Report & Recommendation, recommending that: (1) Counts

1, 2 and 4 of the First Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice; (2) requiring

Defendant Hewitt to answer Counts 3 and 5; (3) requiring Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora

and Owens to answer Count 5; and (4) requiring Defendant Durrenburg to answer Counts 7

and 8. (Doc. No. 26.) The Report & Recommendation was adopted by the district court on

October 1, 2008. (Doc. No. 30.)

Defendant Hewitt filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 and 5 on October 7, 2008.

(Doc. No. 31.) That Motion has been fully briefed and is pending in the district court.

Plaintiff has completed and returned service packets for Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora,

Owens and Durrenburg; those service packets have been processed by the U.S. Marshal’s

Office and the Marshals are in the process of serving Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora,

Owens and Durrenburg. (Doc. No. 47.)

On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend his complaint and

lodged with the Court a Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“Second Amended

Complaint”). (Doc. Nos. 48 & 49.)

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 2 of 7
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

ANALYSIS

1. Motion for Leave to Amend

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide: “A party may amend the party's

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served ... .

Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written

consent of the adverse party.” Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant leave to amend “freely” “when justice

so requires.” However, the policy toward permitting liberal amendment of pleadings must

be tempered with considerations of undue delay, bad faith, 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, or futility of

amendment. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Court’s discretion to

deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been

permitted to amend his complaint. See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90

F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Upon review of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint, the Magistrate

recommends that Plaintiff be permitted to amend. As stated in Section 2, below, some of the

counts of Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint properly allege claims for relief.

Given the procedural posture of the case, the Court finds that amendment will not cause

undue delay. There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that Plaintiff has acted in bad

faith or with dilatory motive. Plaintiff has not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies identified

in previous amendments. Defendants will not suffer undue prejudice if amendment is

permitted. Although some of the proposed amendments are futile because they are without

legal merit, the Magistrate recommends that the amendment be permitted and that the futile

claims be dismissed during screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Finally, because Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend his complaint, the

Magistrate recommends that the district court exercise its discretion and order that no further

amendments be permitted. 

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 3 of 7
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

 Count One of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint is the same as Count Three of

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which the Court ordered Defendant Hewitt to answer.

4

2. Screening of the Proposed Amended Complaint

In his six-count Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants

already named in his Amended Complaint, as well as numerous additional defendants (Dora

B. Schriro and various corrections officers). 

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hewitt violated Plaintiff’s First

Amendment rights when he purposely denied a grievance and then refused to provide Risk

Management forms to Plaintiff even after the deputy warden (1) found in Plaintiff’s favor on

appeal of the denial of the grievance and (2) informed Plaintiff that Defendant Hewitt would

provide Plaintiff with the Risk Management forms.2

 Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated

a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation. The Magistrate recommends that Defendant

Hewitt be required to answer Count One of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. 

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hewitt, Kraicinski, Sambora, Owens,

and additional defendants Property Officer II Sikori, Chaplain Childs, Corrections Officer

III Provencio and Chaplain Henderson violated his First Amendment rights when: (1)

Defendant Hewitt arranged for Plaintiff to be transferred to another unit; (2) Property Officer

Sikori refused to issue Plaintiff needed clothing, repair his sink or issue him personal and

legal property; (3) Defendants Kraicinski and Owens held Plaintiff’s legal documents and

refused to copy them; (4) Chaplain Childs refused to issue Plaintiff his Native American

Religious Church items; (5) Defendant Sambora refused to process Plaintiff’s grievances;

(6) Corrections Officer Provencio delayed Plaintiff’s grievances; (7) Chaplain Henderson

refused Plaintiff’s request for a special religious diet. Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated

a viable claims of First Amendment retaliation. Thus, the Magistrate recommends that

Defendants Hewitt, Kraicinski, Sambora, Owens, Property Officer II Sikori, Chaplain Childs,

Corrections Officer III Provencio and Chaplain Henderson be required to answer Count Two

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 4 of 7
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

 Count Two of Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint is essentially a

restatement of Count Five of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, except that Plaintiff has now

specifically named defendants Property Officer II Sikori, Chaplain Childs, Corrections Officer

III Provencio and Chaplain Henderson. The Court previously ordered Defendants Hewitt,

Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens to answer Count Five of the First Amended Complaint.

4

 Count Three of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint is identical to Count Six of

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which the Court ordered Defendant Durrenberg to answer.

5

of the Complaint.3

In Count Three of his Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Durrenburg violated his Eighth Amendment rights by sending him to the Health

Unit via the West Yard, causing Plaintiff to be attacked.4

 Plaintiff has properly alleged a

claim against Defendant Durrenburg for deliberate indifference/failure to protect in violation

of the Eighth Amendment.

In Count Four of his Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes two

allegations. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Durrenburg falsified disciplinary reports

following the attack on Plaintiff, in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights,

because Plaintiff is Native American. This allegation is identical to Count Seven of

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which the Court required Defendant Durrenburg to

answer. Second, Plaintiff alleges that additional defendants Corrections Officer III

Provencio, Corrections Officer III Weerts and D.W. Kimble all denied Plaintiff’s grievance

regarding Defendant Durrenburg’s actions in further violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment rights. This second allegation fails to state a claim. A prisoner does not have

a protected liberty interest in prison grievance procedures. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988). The mere denial of a grievance

does not give rise to the inference of active unconstitutional behavior. Where a defendant’s

only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial of administrative

grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy alleged unconstitutional

behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for purposes of § 1983. Shehee

v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1264 (2000).

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Corrections

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 5 of 7
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

Officer III Provencio, Corrections Officer III Weerts and D.W. Kimble.

In Count Five of his Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim

not previously alleged in his First Amended Complaint: Plaintiff claims that Defendants

Special Security Officer Sgt. Antonelli and D.W. Carrillo violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment rights when they moved Plaintiff to the East Yard, where he was assaulted due

to his race. Liberally construed, Count Five properly alleges a claim against Defendants

Antonelli and Carrillo for deliberate indifference/failure to protect in violation of the Eighth

Amendment.

In Count Six of his Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

additional defendants Corrections Officer III Gordon, D.W. Carrillo, Sgt. Grabowski,

Corrections Officers III Matthews, Corrections Officer III Camacho, Corrections Officer II

Haggie, S.S.U. Sgt. Antonelli, C.D.U. Property Officer Russell, Property Officer Dankek,

Sgt. O’Connor, Corrections Officer Sheridan, Corrections Officer III Woods, Librarian

Cooper and unidentified John Doe officers violated his First Amendment rights. In support

of this claim, Plaintiff provides a lengthy list of events – ranging from interference with

grievance procedures to mishandling property to placement decisions to issuing tickets to

Plaintiff for his hairstyle – which he claims occurred in retaliation against him. To state a

valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they 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). Plaintiff does

not allege specifically how any of the defendants identified in Count Six personally

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff has failed

to demonstrate the link between Defendants' conduct and his alleged injuries, Plaintiff has

failed to state a claim in Count Six. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 1.17(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that the District Court issue an Order:

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 6 of 7
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

1. GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 48);

2. ORDERING that the Proposed Second Amended Complaint currently lodged at Doc.

No. 49 be filed by the Clerk of the Court;

3. DISMISSING Count Six of Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint;

4. DISMISSING 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;

5. 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; 

6. ORDERING Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora, Owens, Sikori, Childs, Provencio and

Henderson to answer or otherwise respond to Count 2;

7. ORDERING Defendant Durrenberg to answer or otherwise respond to Counts 3 and

4;

8. ORDERING Defendants Antonelli and Carrillo to answer or otherwise respond to

Count 5;

9. Construing Defendant Hewitt’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 and 5 of the First

Amended Complaint as a Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the Second Amended

Complaint, as the allegations against Defendant Hewitt remain essentially the same

(Doc. No. 31);

10. ORDERING that Plaintiff is not permitted any further amendment of his complaint.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 7 of 7