Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00760-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-12-0760-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al. )

)

)

 Defendants. )

 )

Plaintiff Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., who is confined in

the Arizona State Prison Complex, Browning Unit, in Florence,

Arizona, filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force. Currently

pending before the court are plaintiff’s objections to a

Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) issued by the Honorable

Mark E. Aspey, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff

filed what he designated as a “Motion to Exceed Page Limit

for Amended Complaint (Proposed)” (Doc. 24), and

simultaneously lodged a proposed amended complaint (Doc. 24-

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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

For brevity’s sake, the court will refer to that lodged complaint 1

as the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

For ease of reference, all citations to page numbers of docketed

2

items are to the page assigned by the court’s case managemen tand

electronic case filing (CM/ECF) system.

- 2 -

1). Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a “request” for a 1

“stay” of the ruling on the motion to amend “until[]

Defendant Valentine ha[s] been entered into this . . .

case[.]” Mot. (Doc. 25) at 13-15. Construing the motion to

exceed page limit as a “motion to amend[,]” the Magistrate

Judge recommends denying that motion. R & R (Doc. 33) at

4:18. Properly treating plaintiff’s “request” for a stay as

a motion, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying that relief

as well. Id. at 4:20-23. 

2

Background

Assuming familiarity with the prior proceedings herein,

the court will recap only those aspects directly relevant to

the pending objections to the R & R.

I. Screening Order

In the screening order, among other things, this court

dismissed count II of the complaint “to the extent that

Plaintiff asserts a failure to train against Defendants Ryan,

Hemter, Fizer, Pittario, and Moore.” Ord. (Doc. 5) at 7:4-5. 

In dismissing that claim, the court first pointed to the lack

of allegations of “any facts to support how or when any of

these Defendants knew or should have known that training in

the use of force was inadequate.” Id. at 6:23-25. Second,

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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

- 3 -

the court pointed to plaintiff’s “fail[ure] to allege facts

to support that despite such knowledge, any of these

Defendants made a deliberate choice not to address the

allegedly inadequate training.” Id. at 6:25-27. Plaintiff’s

“conclusory allegations” were not sufficient to overcome

those pleading deficiencies, this court found. See id. at

6:27. Nor, as this court pointed out, could plaintiff Gamez

rely upon “a liberal interpretation of [his] civil rights

complaint . . . [to] supply essential elements of the claim

that were not initially pled.” Id. at 7:2-3 (citation

omitted).

II. Motions

As mentioned at the outset, plaintiff Gamez did not

actually file a motion to amend his complaint. Rather, he

filed a “Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Amended Complaint

(Proposed)[.]” Mot. (Doc. 24) at 1. Other than asserting

the need for nine “additional pages” to “enable [him] to

adequately state each claim[,]” plaintiff did not provide any

reasons for allowing amendment. Id. 

On the other hand, plaintiff’s motion for a stay is

broader than its designation suggests. Plaintiff is not

merely seeking a stay until defendant Valentine becomes a

party to this action, but he is also seeking a stay until

defendants Norris and Valentine have complied document

requests in the form of their personnel records. Roughly a

month after plaintiff filed these motions, and before the

issuance of the R & R, defendant Valentine joined in the

answer previously filed by defendant Norris. See Joinder

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

(Doc. 29). 

III. Report & Recommendation 

As the Magistrate Judge construed the FAC, plaintiff is

“re-assert[ing] his negligent hiring and failure to train

claim against Defendants Moore, Hetmer and Ryan.” R & R

(Doc. 33) at 3:2-4. Apparently discerning no difference

between the complaint and the FAC, the Magistrate Judge

recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

because his FAC seeks “to add a claim which was previously

dismissed[]” – namely, the failure to train claim against

the three defendants just listed. Id. at 4:18-19. 

The Magistrate Judge also recommends denying plaintiff’s

motion for a stay of the ruling on his motion to amend the

complaint “until[] defendant Valentine ha[s] been entered

into this . . . case[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 25) at 1:14-15. The

R & R is not explicit as to the basis for this

recommendation, but it can easily be inferred that it is

because prior to the issuance of the R & R, defendant

Valentine joined in defendant Norris’ answer. See R & R

(doc. 33) at 2:24-26. 

IV. Plaintiff’s “Objections”

Plaintiff’s purported “objections” to the R & R consist

of three sections. The “background” section is a verbatim

recitation of the “[s]upporting [f]acts” as alleged in count

I of the FAC, directed against defendants Norris and

Valentine. Compare FAC (doc. 24-1) at 6-10, ¶ 3 with, Obj.

(doc. 35) at 1:10-5:29. The “supporting facts” as alleged in

the FAC pertaining to count II – - negligent hiring and

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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

Plaintiff designates his objections as being “pursuant to Rule 3

72(b)[,]” Obj. (doc. 35) at 1, which requires a district court to

“determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has

been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). In the body of his

objections, however, the plaintiff discusses only the clearly erroneous or

contrary to law standard, which is found in Rule 72(a). See Obj. (Doc. 35)

at 6, § (A). The court, therefore, assumes that plaintiff intends to rely

upon the standard as set forth in the latter Rule – Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a),

which is consistent with his reliance upon section 636(b)(1)(A) in that

both provide for the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of

review.

- 5 -

failure to train and supervise as against defendants Moore,

Hetmer, and Ryan -- comprise most of the “argument” section

of plaintiff’s objections. Compare FAC (doc. 24-1) at 11-

15:27, ¶ 3 with, Obj. (doc. 35) at 6:16-10:27. 

The “background” section also briefly addresses the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation denying plaintiff’s motion

for a stay. Although defendant Valentine joined in defendant

Norris’ answer prior to the filing of plaintiff’s objections,

plaintiff still insists that the court should issue a stay

until Valentine “has entered as a party[.]” Obj. (Doc. 35) at

11:4. Plaintiff also asserts that he is entitled to a stay

until both defendants Norris and Valentine have complied with

his requests for personnel records. 

“For the foregoing reasons[,]” plaintiff “respectfully

request[s] that this . . . court . . . grant [hi]s ‘Motion for

Objection and Recommendation[.]’” Obj. (Doc. 35) at 11:11-13. 

Significantly, however, although plaintiff is claiming that

the R & R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), see id. at 3

6, his purported objections do not explain how or why that is

so. This omission is particularly glaring with respect to the

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion

to amend. In any event, it is apparent that for the most

part, plaintiff simply cut and pasted from his FAC and then

styled those excerpts as objections.

Discussion

Arguably, as will be seen, there is the potential for

differing standards of review depending upon whether the court

is considering the recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion

to amend, or whether it is considering the recommendation to

deny his motion for a stay. Thus, for clarity’s sake, the

court will separately address those two aspects of the R & R.

I. Leave to Amend

Generally, non-dispositive motions are subject to review

under the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), whereas

dispositive motions are subject to de novo review. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Assuming for the sake

of argument that a motion for leave to amend is nondispositive, then, as plaintiff urges, the recommendation to

deny that motion would be subject to a clearly erroneous or

contrary to law standard of review. See Cazares v. Morris,

2011 WL 2414543, at *2 (D.Ariz. June 16, 2011) (“Generally, a

motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive

matter that may be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”) (citing, inter alia, JJCO, Inc. v.

Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 2009 WL 3818247, *2 (D.Haw. Nov.

12, 2009) (magistrate judge’s denial of a motion for leave to

amend complaint to add new defendant not a dispositive

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

ruling)) (citing, in turn, U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory

Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1102 n. 1 (9 Cir. th

1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 (9 Cir. 1996) th

(noting that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its

Complaint was properly treated as a nondispositive motion when

the magistrate judge granted the plaintiff’s motion)).

In the present case, however, because the Magistrate

Judge specifically premised recommending denial of plaintiff’s

motion for leave to amend on futility grounds, arguably such

denial is “view[ed] . . . as a dispositive ruling.” See JJCO,

Inc., 2009 WL 3818247, at *3 (citing cases). That “view is not

universal[,]” though. Id. at *3 (citing Hall v. Norfolk S.

Ry. Co., 469 F.3d 590, 595 (7 Cir. 2006) (magistrate judge’s th

denial of a motion to amend on grounds of futility to be

nondispositive and subject to review for clear error by the

district court)). This court need not become mired down in

resolving the applicable standard of review here because

plaintiff cannot prevail under either. 

Insofar as the motion to amend is concerned, plaintiff

does not even hint at any “clearly erroneous” factual

findings. See Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284

F.R.D. 452, 458 (D.Ariz. 2012) (“The clearly erroneous

standard applies to the magistrate judge’s factual

findings[.]”) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted), reconsideration denied, 2012 WL 2368478 (D.Ariz.

June 21, 2012). Plaintiff also has not, directly or

implicitly, indicated that any of the Magistrate Judge’s legal

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

conclusions are contrary to law. See id. (“[T]he contrary to

law standard applies to the magistrate judge’s legal

conclusions[.]”) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). Additionally, as to his motion to amend, as already

discussed, plaintiff’s so-called “objections” regarding his

motion to amend consist of nothing more than a verbatim

reiteration of the allegations in his FAC. Obviously, such

allegations do not in any way constitute objections to the 

R & R which, in turn could be subject to de novo review. 

Accordingly, the court finds no merit to plaintiff’s

“objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny

plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 24). 

II. Stay

Preliminarily, the court must determine the appropriate

standard of review where, as here, a Magistrate Judge

recommends denying a motion for a stay. “‘Motions to stay

have not been held to be generically dispositive. However,

where the effect of the motion is a denial of relief, it is

considered dispositive.’” Navarro v. Ryan, 2013 WL 1561111, at

*1 n. 1 (D.Ariz. Feb. 25, 2013), adopted as modified on other

grounds, 2013 WL 1561470 (D.Ariz. April 12, 2013), (quoting

Bishop v. Schriro, 2009 WL 1749989, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 18,

2009) (citing Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 416 (9 Cir. th

1992) (when injunctive relief sought goes to the merits of

plaintiff’s action or a complete stay of an action, magistrate

judge’s orders under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) are precluded)

(“Here, however, the magistrate did not recommend the

imposition of a stay; rather, he imposed it himself. That

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

order was beyond the magistrate [judge]’s authority: it was

beyond his jurisdiction and was, in essence, a legal

nullity.”); but see, Powershare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597

F.3d 10, 13–14 (1 Cir. 2010) (Magistrate Judge’s ruling on st

motion to stay litigation pending arbitration was not

dispositive) (citations omitted)).

In the present case, denying plaintiff’s motion for a

stay of a ruling on his motion to amend does not have the

effect of denying him relief. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion

for a stay is non-dispositive. Hence, the clearly erroneous

or contrary to law standard governs this aspect of the R & R. 

Magistrate Judge Aspey’s recommendation to deny plaintiff’s

motion for a stay readily survives that standard of review. 

First, as with his “objections” pertaining to his motion

to amend, plaintiff has not identified any factual findings

pertaining to his motion for a stay which he deems to be

clearly erroneous. Plaintiff also has not identified any

specific legal conclusions regarding his motion to amend which

he believes are contrary to law. 

Moreover, plaintiff claimed the need for a stay because

when he filed that motion, defendant Valentine was not yet a

party. Since then, however, and before the issuance of the 

R & R, Mr. Valentine did become a party to this action through

joinder in defendant Norris’ answer. Defendant Valentine’s

joinder effectively mooted this asserted basis for a stay. 

Finally, in objecting to the recommendation denying a

stay, plaintiff claims that a stay is necessary until

defendant Valentine also “compl[ies] with [a] request for

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

production of ‘personnel records.’” Obj. (Doc. 35) at 11:4-5

(citing Docs. 25, 26, 27 and 28). The record belies that

claim. Docket 25 is plaintiff’s own motion for a stay, which

is obviously irrelevant to this claim. Dockets 26, 27 and 28

are, respectively, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery as

to defendant Norris, not defendant Valentine, defendant

Norris’ response and plaintiff’s reply. As an aside, that

motion to compel was filed the same day as plaintiff’s motion

for a stay, and has since been denied (Doc. 52). 

Consequently, this record does not show any outstanding

document request as to defendant Valentine so as to warrant

staying a ruling on plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 

For these reasons, the court finds no merit to plaintiff’s

“objections” to the R & R insofar as it recommends denying his

motion for a stay. 

Conclusion

In sum, as set forth above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 33) is ADOPTED; and accordingly

(2) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed page Limit for Amended 

Complaint (Proposed)” (Doc. 24) and “Plaintiff[’s]

request that this court stay his Ruling on Amended

Complaint (Dkt.24) until[] Defendant Valentine had

[sic] been entered into this civil case” (Doc. 25)

are DENIED.

DATED this 6 day of May, 2013. th

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 95 Filed 05/06/13 Page 10 of 10