Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02548/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02548-3/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clinton Joseph Slone, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2548-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Clinton Joseph Slone, a pro se inmate, filed a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties filed numerous and various motions. Among other rulings,

the Court will allow the instant action to proceed against Defendants Director of Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADC) Dora B. Schriro, Deputy Warden D.W. Klein, Deputy

Warden D.W. Schweitzer, Capt. Carroll, and Sgt. Carlin as to Plaintiff’s claims that his

constitutional rights were violated because (1) he was placed in maximum security in

retaliation (Count I); (2) Schriro, Klein, and Carlin moved him to an unsanitary shower cell

(Count III); (3) Schriro and Schweitzer failed to protect him when in November 2004 he was

placed in general population despite being labeled a snitch (Count IV); and (4) Schriro,

Carroll, and Carlin violated his due process during disciplinary proceedings (Count VI) (Doc.

#9).

I. Background

Plaintiff Clinton Joseph Slone filed a First Amended Complaint naming as Defendants

ADC, Schriro, Klein, Schweitzer, Carroll, and Carlin (Doc. #9). Plaintiff alleged that his

constitutional rights were violated because (1) his placement into maximum security was

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 110 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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 -

retaliatory; (2) Schriro and Carlin failed to protect him when in May 2004 he was placed with

a violent inmate; (3) Schriro, Klein, and Carlin moved him to an unsanitary shower cell;

(4) Schriro and Schweitzer failed to protect him when in November 2004 he was placed in

general population despite being labeled a snitch; (5) Schweitzer failed to protect him when

in March 2005 he was housed with a violent inmate; (6) Schriro, Carroll, and Carlin violated

his due process during disciplinary proceedings; and (7) Schriro, Klien, and Carlin subjected

him to overcrowded conditions (Id.).

II. Motions to Reconsider

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to certain defendants and claims, and

Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint for failure to exhaust (Docs. ##19, 39).

Plaintiff then filed a moved for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #87).

Plaintiff indicated that he was waiving several claims and his claims against Schweitzer

(Doc. #97). In October 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and ordered Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint served

(Doc. #95). 

Defendants moved for reconsideration of this Court’s order, arguing that Plaintiff

obviously wanted to proceed with his Second Amended Complaint and dismiss Schweitzer

(Doc. #98). Plaintiff filed a response, and then moved to withdraw his Motion to Amend

(Doc. #104). Plaintiff stated that he wanted to waive claims II, V, and VII (Id.). Notably,

Plaintiff did not indicate that he wished to dismiss Schweitzer (Id.). Defendants conceded

to the withdrawal, arguing that if Plaintiff wished to continue against Schweitzer they would

object to the motion (Doc. #108). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Revisit this Court’s order,

arguing that ADC waived immunity (Doc. #103).

Initially, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. #96) will be granted

and Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. #100) will be denied. In addition, because, despite

Defendants’ argument, Plaintiff obviously wants to proceed with his First Amended

Complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #98) will be denied. Plaintiff has

named Schweitzer in his First Amended Complaint and has not waived any claims against

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 110 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

him (Doc. #9). However, if Plaintiff wishes to dismiss Schweitzer, the Court encourages

Plaintiff to file a separate motion to dismiss. As requested by Plaintiff, Counts II, V, and VII

will be dismissed. 

Thus, the current Defendants in the instant action are Schriro, Klein, Schweitzer,

Carroll, and Carlin (Doc. #9). Plaintiff’s current claims are that his constitutional rights were

violated because (1) he was placed in maximum security in retaliation (Count I); (2) Schriro,

Klein, and Carlin moved him to an unsanitary shower cell (Count III); (3) Schriro and

Schweitzer failed to protect him when in November 2004 he was placed in general

population despite being labeled a snitch (Count IV); and (4) Schriro, Carroll, and Carlin

violated his due process during disciplinary proceedings (Count VI) (Id.).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Revisit (Doc. #103) will be denied. ADC is entitled to Eleventh

Amendment Immunity and is not a person within the meaning of § 1983. See Pennhurst

State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (providing that under the

Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may not

be sued in federal court without its consent); Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398

(9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) ( providing that ADC is not a person within the meaning of

§ 1983).

II. Discovery Motions

Plaintiff moved to compel discover (Doc. #75). Defendants responded and Plaintiff

replied (Docs. ##78, 83). Defendants now seek to file a sur-reply and Plaintiff seeks to

respond to Defendants’ sur-reply (Docs. ##84, 86). Defendants and Plaintiff’s motions will

be granted and their sur-reply and reply will be considered. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

will be addressed in a separate order.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Doc. #84) and Plaintiff’s Motion

for Leave to File Reply (Doc. #86) are granted.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. #96) is granted.

(3) Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. #100) is denied.

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 110 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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 -

(4) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #98) and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. #103) are denied.

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw his Motion to Amend (Doc. #104) is granted.

(6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. #87) is denied.

(7) Counts II, V, and VII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #9) are dismissed.

Plaintiff’s action will proceed against Schriro, Klein, Schweitzer, Carroll, and Carlin as to

Counts I, III, IV, and VI.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 110 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 4