Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01287/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01287-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael A. Dawes, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-06-1287-PHX-PGR (JJM)

)

vs. )

) ORDER

John Doe, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Marshall's Report and

Recommendation (doc. #59), wherein she recommends that Defendant

Brandenberger's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #30) be granted and that

the plaintiff's Motion [for] Leave [of] Court to Amend Complaint (doc. #43) be

granted in part and denied in part. The Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo notwithstanding that no party has filed any document

formally designated as an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

This civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arises from the

plaintiff's allegations that his back and neck were injured when, on the date of his

arrest for robbery on November 16, 2005, a police officer moving his (the

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 8
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

1

 The plaintiff mistakenly refers to Sgt. Brandenberger as "Brandonberger" in his

original complaint and in his proposed amended complaint.

2

 The plaintiff mistakenly refers to Officer Contreras as "Contrearas" in the proposed

amended complaint.

- 2 -

plaintiff's) van crashed into the police car in which he was being detained and that

his subsequent request to be then taken to be medically treated for his injuries

was denied. In its initial service order (doc. #3), the Court dismissed all

defendants and claims in the plaintiff's original complaint except those in Counts I

and II related to defendant Jeffrey Brandenberger.1

 The plaintiff alleged in Count

I that it was Sgt. Brandenberger who was the driver who caused the accident,

and he alleged in Count Two that Sgt. Brandenberger refused to take him to a

medical professional for treatment after he complained to Sgt. Brandenberger

about suffering from back pain after the accident.

Summary Judgment Motion

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended

that Sgt. Brandenberger's summary judgment motion, which is directed at the

original complaint, be granted. In his motion, Sgt. Brandenberger, supported by

his first affidavit, specifically denied being the driver of the plaintiff's van at the

time of the accident and, supported by his second affidavit, specifically denied

that the plaintiff requested medical attention and specifically denied that he

refused the plaintiff any type of medical care. The plaintiff does not now contest

Sgt. Brandenberger's account as the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint

(docs. ##45 and 50) has substituted Officer George Contreras2

 as the named

defendant in Counts I and II, directing at him all of the allegations previously

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 8
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

3

 As the plaintiff states in his motion to amend his complaint (doc. #43):

Plaintiff has newly discovered evidence that Officer George Contreras was

driving the van that caused the inpact [sic] to the Phoenix Police car that Plaintiff

was in. That caused aleged [sic] injuries to Plaintiff. And who refused Plaintiff

medical treatment after accident.

The plaintiff makes essentially the same statement in other documents. See e.g. docs. ## 52

and 57.

4

 The plaintiff's proposed amended complaint was lodged twice, on December 14,

2006 (doc. #45) and again on January 3, 2007 (doc. #50). For purposes of this Order, the Court

will refer to the latter as the amended complaint.

- 3 -

raised against Sgt. Brandenberger in Counts I and II of the original complaint.3

Motion to Amend Complaint

The plaintiff has moved to amend his complaint to allege claims against

Officer Contreras, Sgt. Brandenberger, Sgt. Jeffrey Chapman, Officer Jose

Garcia, and Chief of Police John Doe.4

 The Court further concludes that the

result recommended by the Magistrate Judge, i.e. that the amended complaint be

allowed to proceed solely against Officer Contreras is correct, although the Court

reaches that result by allowing the amended complaint to be filed in its entirety

and then screening it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The Court will allow this action to proceed against Officer Contreras given

that the defense has stated that there is no objection to his inclusion. See doc.

#86 at 2.

The Court will dismiss Officer Jose Garcia from the amended complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because the amended complaint makes no

actionable allegations as to him and thus fails to state a claim as to him, and

because the plaintiff has stated that he has "no problem" with Officer Garcia not

being included as a defendant in the amended complaint. See doc. #52 at 4.

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 8
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

5

 The plaintiff has reiterated this sole basis for Police Chief Doe's inclusion in this

action in subsequently filed documents. For example, the plaintiff states in his reply in support

of his motion to amend (doc. #52) that "Phoenix Chief of Police John Doe should be added for

not properly supervising his officers."

- 4 -

The Court will also dismiss Police Chief John Doe from this action pursuant

to § 1915A(b). It is well established that since there is no vicarious liability under

§ 1983, a supervisor is liable for the constitutional violations of a subordinate only

if he "participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed

to act to prevent them." Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Given

that the plaintiff does not allege in the amended complaint any personal

participation by Police Chief Doe in the alleged civil rights violations, or any

knowledge by Police Chief Doe of those violations, stating instead that the police

chief is subject to liability solely because he "is in charg[e] of the officers involved

in violation of rights of Plaintiff. Failed to properly supervise them doing their

duty[,]" the amended complaint fails to state a claim against Police Chief Doe.5

The Court will further dismiss Sgt. Brandenbeger and Sgt. Chapman from

the amended complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The

plaintiff alleges in Count II of the amended complaint that these two supervisory

officers violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because they saw

the accident happen but failed to ensure that he was taken for immediate medical

treatment, and the plaintiff alleges in Count III that Sgt. Chapman gave Officer

Contreras permission to move his van and then failed to properly supervise

Officer Contreras after the accident to make sure he received medical treatment.

Supervisory liability under § 1983 cannot attach where the allegation of

liability is based merely on a supervisor's failure to act, Bass v. Robinson, 167

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 8
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 - 5 -

F.3d 1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999), or on his negligent failure to provide medical care

to a prisoner. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Rather, the

complaint must allege a violation of the standards of care applicable to the Eighth

Amendment. Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir.

2002) (Court noted that a pretrial detainee's right to medical care derives from the

due process clause, which imposes, at a minimum, the same duty that the Eighth

Amendment imposes.) In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim predicated

on an official's deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs, the

prisoner must show that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of

serious harm to his health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114

S.Ct. 1970, 1978-79 (1994). This standard requires in part that the official be

subjectively aware of the medical risk to the prisoner; it is not sufficient that he

objectively should have recognized the danger but failed to do so. Id.; Gibson,

290 F.3d at 1188. 

The conclusory allegations of the amended complaint directed at Sgt.

Brandenberger and Sgt. Chapman, construed liberally in the plaintiff's favor, fail

to state an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care since they do not

sufficiently allege that either of these defendants knew that the plaintiff had

suffered a sufficiently serious injury or that they had a sufficiently culpable state of

mind in denying him medical care. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(doc. #59) is accepted and adopted by the Court as set forth herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brandenberger's Motion for

Summary Judgment (doc. #30) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion [for] Leave [of] Court

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

 Although the amended complaint is marked as being the Second Amended

Complaint, in actuality it will be the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint because the Court

previously denied the plaintiff's first request to amend his complaint.

- 6 -

to Amend Complaint (doc. #43) is granted and that the Clerk of the Court shall file

and docket the plaintiff's amended complaint (doc. #50), lodged on January 3,

2007, as the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant George Contrearas [sic -

Contreras] shall answer the allegations against him in Counts I and II of the First

Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Police Chief Doe, Jeffrey

Brandonberger [sic - Brandenberger], Jeffery Chapman, and Jose Garcia are

dismissed from the First Amended Complaint and that Count III of the First

Amended Complaint is dismissed, all pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall send the plaintiff a service packet including

the First Amended Complaint (lodged as doc. #50), this Order, and both

summons and request for waiver forms for defendant George Contreras.

(2) The plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of

the Court within 20 days of the filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will

not provide service of process if the plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. 

(3) If the plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons

or complete service of the summons and First Amended Complaint on defendant

Contreras within 120 days of the filing of the First Amended Complaint the action

may be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

(4) The United States Marshal shall retain the summons, a copy of the First

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 6 of 8
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 - 7 -

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

(5) The United States Marshal shall notify defendant Contreras of the

commencement of this action and request waiver of service of the summons

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d). The notice to defendant Contreras shall include a

copy of this Order. The Marshal shall file the waiver of service of the summons or

the request for waiver if returned as undeliverable as soon as it is received. If a

waiver of service of the summons is not returned by defendant Contreras within

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

Marshal shall:

(a) Personally serve copies of the summons, First Amended

Complaint, and this Order upon defendant Contreras pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

4(c)(2);

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

service for defendant Contreras, 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 him. The costs of service shall be enumerated on the

return of service form (USM-285) and shall include the costs incurred by the

Marshal for photocopying additional copies of the summons, First Amended

Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process receipt and return forms

(USM-285), if required. Costs of personal service will be taxed against defendant

Contreras pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2) and (5), unless otherwise ordered by

the Court.

(6) If defendant Contreras agrees to waive service of the summons and

First Amended Complaint, he shall return the signed waiver form to the United

States Marshal, not to the plaintiff. 

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 7 of 8
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 - 8 -

(7) Defendant Contreras shall answer the First Amended Complaint or

otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the

applicable provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a).

(8) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall

pursuant to LRCiv 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 89 Filed 03/27/07 Page 8 of 8