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

Roberto Carrasco Gamez, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 12-00760 PHX RCB MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Charles L. Ryan, Warden Hetmer, )

Greg Fizer, Sergeant Moore, )

CO Pittario, CO Norris, )

CO Valentine, )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD:

Plaintiff Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., who is confined

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

Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on April 20, 2012. Plaintiff alleged three counts

for excessive force and named as defendants Director of the

Arizona Department of Corrections Charles L. Ryan, Warden

Hetmer, Deputy Warden Greg Fizer, Sergeant Moore, and

Corrections Officers Pittario, Norris, and Valentine.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, compensatory, punitive, and

injunctive relief. 

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 33 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 5
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 May 11, 2012, the Court issued a screening order,

requiring Defendant Norris and Defendant Valentine to answer

Plaintiff’s claim that these defendants used excessive force

against Plaintiff on May 7, 2011, by forcefully slamming him to

the ground and forcibly hand-cuffing Plaintiff after he was

returning to his cell with Defendant Valentine’s permission to

retrieve a pain medication. The Court dismissed all other

claims and defendants. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim

that Defendants Ryan, Hetmer, Fizer, Moore, and Pittario are

liable for denying his grievances and grievance appeals

concerning the May 7, 2011, incident. The Court also dismissed

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants Ryan, Hetmer, Fizer,

Moore, and Pittario are liable for a failure to train ADC staff

in the use of force. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s claim

that Defendants Norris and Valentine violated his due process

and equal protection rights by using excessive force against

him.

Defendant Norris was served on or about June 1, 2012,

and answered the complaint on or about July 26, 2012. A

scheduling order was issued July 31, 2012, requiring any motion

to add defendants or to amend the complaint be filed by

September 21, 2012, and that discovery be completed by March 1,

2013. Plaintiff sought additional time to serve Defendant

Valentine, which motion was granted. Defendant Valentine was

served on or about September 11, 2012, and joined in Defendant

Norris’ answer to the complaint on October 25, 2012.

Plaintiff lodged a proposed amended complaint on

September 19, 2012. In the lodged complaint Plaintiff again

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 33 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 5
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-

states a claim for excessive force against Defendants Norris and

Valentine and Plaintiff seeks to re-assert his negligent hiring

and failure to train claim against Defendants Moore, Hetmer and

Ryan.

On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking

to stay a decision on his motion to amend his complaint until

Defendant Valentine had appeared.

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). “Courts are free

to grant a party leave to amend whenever ‘justice so requires,’

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and requests for leave are generally

granted with ‘extreme liberality.’” Moss v. United States

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Owens

v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th

Cir. 2001). However, granting a plaintiff leave to amend “is

subject to the qualification that the amendment not cause undue

prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is

not futile.” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d

789, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

Futility of amendment is sufficient to justify denial

of a motion for leave to amend. See Gordon v. City of Oakland,

627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d

815 (9th Cir. 1995). A claim in a proposed amended complaint is

futile if it would be immediately “subject to dismissal”

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 33 Filed 11/21/12 Page 3 of 5
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-

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

accepting all of the facts alleged as true. See Steckman v.

Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998);

Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Medical Mutual of Ohio,601 F.3d

505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010); Briggs v. Mississippi, 331 F.3d 499,

508 (5th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

recently stated that “the ‘proper test to be applied when

determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is

identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a

pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).’” Nordyke v. King, 644

F.3d 776, 790 n.12 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Miller v.

Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988), rev’d on

other grounds by 681 F.3d 1041 (en banc). The Seventh Circuit

Court of Appeals has concluded that “leave to amend may be

denied if the new complaint does not cure deficiencies in the

old one and is doomed to the same fate.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635

F.3d 950, 956 (2011).

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add a

claim which was previously dismissed. Therefore,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion to amend at Doc. 24

be denied.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the motion to stay at

Doc. 25 be denied.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 33 Filed 11/21/12 Page 4 of 5
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-

parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00760-RCB Document 33 Filed 11/21/12 Page 5 of 5