Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01428/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01428-1/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

JOSHUA DEROCHE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-01428 PHX MHM (MEA)

)

LINDY FUNKHOUSE, M. BARGAN, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAMELA BARR, JILL KENNEDY, )

JASON LANE, )

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA:

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. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint (Docket No. 29).

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this matter on

June 2, 2006. On June 21, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

pay the filing fee required in the matter or to file a new

application to proceed before the Court in forma pauperis. See

Docket No. 3. Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 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

 In Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction at Docket

No. 14, Plaintiff stated: “Lastly, Plaintiff dismisses Defendant

Wandry from all future court proceedings.”

-2-

pauperis on July 13, 2006, see Docket No. 4, and filed a motion

for leave to amend his complaint on August 8, 2006. See Docket

No. 5.

On September 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended

motion to amend his complaint. See Docket No. 7. On October

13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, naming as

defendants M. Bargan, Pamela Barr, Jill Kennedy, Jason Lane, and

FNU Wandry, and naming John and Jane Does defendants. See

Docket No. 8. On December 12, 2006, the Court granted

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied

Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, and ordered

Defendant Kennedy, Bargan, Barr, Lane and Wandry be served and

answer the first amended complaint. Specifically, the Court

ordered Defendants to answer the claim they were deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs because they

failed to provide him adequate care for his Hepatitis C.

Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that he experienced unreasonable

delays, was subjected to improper testing, that he was misdiagnosed, and that he received a medication which caused

adverse symptoms. See Docket No. 11.

Defendant Wandry was dismissed as a defendant pursuant

to Plaintiff’s motion on February 13, 2007. See Docket No. 19.1

Defendant Kennedy was served on or about February 16, 2007,

however, service on Defendants Lane, Bargan, and Barr was

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 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-

returned unexecuted.

Plaintiff filed another motion to further amend his

complaint on April 27, 2007, and lodged a proposed second

amended complaint. See Docket No. 29 & Docket No. 30. On May

14, 2007, Defendants Bargan, Barr, Kennedy, and Lane answered

the first amended complaint, as ordered by the Court on December

12, 2006. See Docket No. 32. A scheduling order was issued,

allowing the parties until October 26, 2007, to complete

discovery and requiring Plaintiff to file any motion to further

amend his complaint by August 3, 2007. See Docket No. 33. On

June 25, 2007, Defendants filed a pleading in response to

several motions filed by Plaintiff. See Docket No. 40. The

pleading filed by Defendants included a “Cross Motion” to

dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See id. 

The proposed amended complaint filed April 27, 2007,

seeks to add an additional defendant, i.e., “FNU” Espirito as a

defendant in this matter. As the factual basis for his claim

against Defendant Espirito, Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed

to provide Plaintiff with adequate Hepatitis C treatment while

Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee in August of 2006. Plaintiff

contends Defendant Espirito was previously identified in his

first amended complaint as a John Doe defendant.

The proposed amended complaint also seeks to add

Defendant Wandry as a defendant in this matter. The Court notes

Defendant Wandry was dismissed pursuant to Plaintiff’s request,

included in his pleading at Docket No. 14, and that the Court

has previously determined Plaintiff had stated a claim for

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 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

 Seroquel is a medication normally prescribed to treat, inter

alia, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

-4-

relief against Defendant Wandry. In his lodged second amended

complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Wandry prescribed the

medication Seroquel for Plaintiff in October of 2004 through

August of 2005.2 Plaintiff alleges this medication was

contraindicated for the treatment of Hepatitis C and that the

medication caused him physical harm. The proposed amended

complaint filed April 27, 2007, seeks injunctive relief and

monetary damages, including damages for emotional suffering and

pain.

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). 

In exercising its discretion with regard to

the amendment of pleadings, a court must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule

15--to facilitate decision on the merits

rather than on the pleadings or

technicalities. This court has noted on

several occasions that the Supreme Court has

instructed the lower federal courts to heed

carefully the command of Rule 15(a), F[ed].

R. Civ. P., by freely granting leave to amend

when justice so requires. 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

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 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 -5-

citations and quotations omitted).

In exercising its discretion with regard to a motion to

amend a complaint, 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 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. 2006). 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).

Plaintiff seeks to name specific defendants who were

alleged to be individually deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs. Accordingly, the claims stated are not

futile nor does Plaintiff name defendants who may not be sued

pursuant to section 1983, Therefore, the Court concludes the

amendment should be allowed and that the Court should order

Plaintiff to return service packets to the Court for Defendant

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 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-

Wandry and Defendant Espirito and that the Court should order

these Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s allegation that they were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (Docket No. 29) be granted to the extent

stated in this Report and Recommendation.

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. Reyna-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. 

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 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-

DATED this 17th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01428-MHM Document 56 Filed 09/19/07 Page 7 of 7