Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729-0/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

1

 Plaintiff has filed six lawsuits in this division of the District Court of Arizona in the

last seven years. The others are CV-06-1879-PHX-SMM (on appeal); CV-07-1070-PHX-SMM

(ECV) (on appeal); CV-09-1363-PHX-SMM (LOA) (on appeal); CV-09-2152-PHX-SMM

(LOA) (open case at trial level); CV-10-1197-PHX-SMM (LOA) (case final, no appeal). Each

judgment entered in these cases was adverse to Plaintiff.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James E. Skinner, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1729-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First

Amended Complaint, Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order, and Motion for Leave of

Court to Amend First Amended Complaint and Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration (“Second

Motion to Amend”). (Docs. 33, 34, 39) In the Second Motion to Amend, Plaintiff “withdraws

his Motion for Reconsideration and the concurrently filed [Motion] for Leave to Amend.” (Doc.

39 at 1) Accordingly, the Court will order the first two motions to be withdrawn and will

address only the Second Motion to Amend.

I. Background

Plaintiff, a frequent filer1

 and proceeding pro se, commenced this prisoner civil rights

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 08/02/13 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

 Defendant Zaborsky waived service on April 19, 2013, but he has yet to file an Answer.

(Doc. 26) Attempts by the United States Marshals Service to serve Defendants Alvarez and

Duarte have been unsuccessful and their summonses have been returned unexecuted. (Docs. 14,

16) 

- 2 -

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 14, 2012, by lodging a Complaint. (Docs. 1-2)

Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. (Docs. 3, 6) On

September 21, 2012, the assigned District Judge denied Plaintiff’s request to exceed the page

limit and file the Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days thereafter. (Doc. 6) 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2012. (Doc. 8) Plaintiff

raised two grounds for relief against seventeen separate defendants. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged

he is being deprived of basic necessities in violation of the Eighth Amendment, including

inadequate plumbing in his cell, unsanitary conditions in his cell and other areas, and the failure

to provide cleaning supplies to address the unsanitary conditions. In Count II, Plaintiff alleged

prison officials retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for filing a previous

federal civil rights lawsuit. The District Judge screened the First Amended Complaint in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) on February 19, 2013. (Doc. 9) The District Judge

dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim, along with three defendants, but ordered fourteen

defendants to answer the allegations in Count I. (Doc. 9 at 15) Eleven defendants have since

filed an Answer. (Docs. 27, 35, 38)2

II. Second Motion to Amend - Analysis

Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend requests leave to amend his First Amended

Complaint, though it offers no reason or explanation of any kind for the proposed amendments.

Plaintiff has lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint that appears to comply with Local

Rule (LRCiv) 15.1(a) (proposed amended pleading “must indicate in what respect it differs from

the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and

underlining the text to be added.”).

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 08/02/13 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 -

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the amendment of

civil complaints, provides that “leave [to amend a pleading] shall be freely given when justice

so requires.” “In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend, factors to be

considered include the presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated

failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party and

futility of the proposed amendment.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531,

538 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). A district court need not

prolong litigation by permitting further amendment where such amendment would be futile.

Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). Granting or denying a

motion to amend is a matter within the court’s discretion. See, e.g., Ventress v. Japan Airlines,

603 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2010); Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of Amer., 232 F.3d 719, 725

(9th Cir. 2000). “[A] district court’s discretion over amendments is especially broad ‘where the

court has already given a plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint . . . .’”

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Mir v.

Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1980)).

Here, upon consideration of the above factors, the Court finds that leave to amend

should be denied. Although there is no evidence of bad faith on Plaintiff’s part, two other

significant factors weigh against granting leave to amend. First, Plaintiff was previously granted

leave to amend after his original Complaint substantially exceeded the 15-page limitation as

required by LRCiv 3.4 and Rule 8(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., (“short and plain statement of the

claim”). (See Doc. 6 at 2-3) Plaintiff then timely filed his First Amended Complaint, pursuant

to which the District Judge ordered service upon, and an Answer from, fourteen different

defendants. After nearly four months of time spent effecting service of process by the United

States Marshals Service, in addition to assistance from the Court and Defendants’ counsel in

obtaining valid service addresses, the case is now ready to proceed with discovery. This action

is nearly a year old. Granting leave to file another amended complaint would essentially start

the case over, at least with respect to those defendants Plaintiff seeks to add in his proposed

Second Amended Complaint; would add more delay and expense in reaching the merits of

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 08/02/13 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 -

Plaintiff’s claims, and render it less likely the Court and parties could substantially meet the

congressional recommended goal established in the Civil Justice Reform Act of a trial in this

case eighteen months after the Complaint was filed, see 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2); and is

inconsistent with Rule 1, Fed.R.Civ.P.,(“These rules . . . shall be construed and administered

to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”) (emphasis added).

Second, the Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed amendments would be futile. In the

screening order for the First Amended Complaint, the District Judge, in dismissing Plaintiff’s

retaliation claim in Count II, found “[t]he facts alleged by Plaintiff do not support that

Defendants retaliated against him for filing the previous case.” (Doc. 9 at 13) The Judge

explained, “If anything, the allegations suggest that Defendants suspended [Plaintiff’s former

lawyer’s] ability to visit inmates on a non-legal basis because she had represented inmates in

lawsuits against prison officials.” (Id.) 

In the proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff re-writes his retaliation claim

in Count II. (See Doc. 40 at 17-26) However, it suffers from the same flaw as Count II of the

First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s factual allegations that prison officials impeded his mail

and prohibited his former lawyer from making non-legal visits fail to demonstrate that the

actions were taken in retaliation for Plaintiff’s 2009 federal lawsuit, as he claims. Plaintiff refers

to a July 2011 settlement conference for the 2009 case and contends that Defendant Zaborsky

was upset that Plaintiff had to be available for two legal calls only two days apart. (Doc. 40 at

17) Plaintiff next contends that, after March 2012, Defendants Barrios and Credio, the only two

defendants against whom the proposed Count II is alleged, impeded mail from, and prohibited

visits by, the attorney who represented Plaintiff in the 2009 case. (Doc. 40 at 22-26) 

Plaintiff concedes that the attorney no longer represented him after March 2012, and,

thus, the alleged impediments did not involve legal mail or legal visits. Regardless, Plaintiff’s

allegations fail to connect the filing of his 2009 lawsuit, or his participation in the July 2011

settlement conference, with the alleged actions taken by Barrios and Credio in 2012 and 2013.

See Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997) (a retaliation claim requires an inmate

to show (1) that the prison official acted in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionallyCase 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 08/02/13 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 -

protected right, and (2) that the action advanced no legitimate penological interest). Plaintiff

also fails to provide any explanation of how Zaborsky’s reaction to Plaintiff’s participation in

two legal calls in 2011 has anything to do with the alleged actions taken by Barrios and Credio.

As the District Judge stated in the screening order referenced above, if anything, the allegations

suggest that Plaintiff’s former lawyer was prohibited from visiting him on a non-legal basis

because she had represented inmates in lawsuits against prison officials. Because Plaintiff’s

proposed amended Count II fails to sufficiently allege a retaliation claim, granting Plaintiff

leave to amend to add that claim would be futile. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Second Motion

to Amend will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended

Complaint, doc. 33, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order, doc. 34, are

WITHDRAWN.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Amend

First Amended Complaint, doc. 39, is DENIED.

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 08/02/13 Page 5 of 5