Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02638/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02638-2/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

MARK GUNN LLOYD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-02638 PHX PGR MEA

)

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, DETENTION ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OFFICER BARRON, DETENTION )

OFFICER OLAGUE, NURSE JACKIE, ) 

) 

Defendants. )

________________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on referral

from the District Judge, and the determination of the Magistrate

Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation, are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

file a first amended complaint [Docket No. 56], styled as a

motion for leave to conform his complaint to the evidence and

accompanied by a lodged proposed amended complaint [Docket No.

57]. Defendants responded to the motion for leave to file an

amended complaint with a “motion to dismiss” the first amended

complaint because it was not timely filed. See Docket No. 64.

Defendants also filed a response to the motion for leave to

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 7
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-

amend, contending Plaintiff should not be allowed to now conform

his factual allegations to conform to the evidence produced

during discovery. 

Plaintiff’s initial complaint, filed December 31, 2007,

named as defendants Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio, Detention

Officer Barron, Detention Officer Olague, and “Nurse Jackie.”

Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated

when, as a pre-trial detainee, pepper spray was used on him

while he was in a recreational area of the Maricopa County

Towers jail. Plaintiff alleged his safety was threatened

because the defendant officers improperly used pepper spray,

that he was harmed by the use of the pepper spray, and that he

received inadequate medical attention after this incident. 

On January 10, 2008, Plaintiff was given leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and Defendants were ordered to answer

Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint. See Docket No. 3. Count I of

the complaint alleged a cause of action for violation of

Plaintiff’s right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment,

Count II stated a cause of action for violation of Plaintiff’s

due process right to safety while incarcerated, and Count III

alleged a violation of Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of

the laws. Counts II and III of the complaint were dismissed as

duplicative.

Plaintiff timely returned service packets to the Court

which were forwarded to the United States Marshal. Defendants

Arpaio, Barron, and Olague waived service on or about January

22, 2008. See Docket Nos. 7, 8, 9. On February 26, 2008,

service was returned unexecuted with regard to “Nurse Jackie.”

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 7
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 On July 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion [Docket No. 47]

seeking an extension of the time allowed to serve Defendant “Nurse

Jackie” with the summons and complaint in this matter. On August 12,

2008, Plaintiff filed a pleading identifying “Nurse Jackie” as Jackie

Preston, a nurse he asserts was or is employed by the Sacred Heart

Medical Clinic, whose identity he has ascertained through discovery.

See Docket No. 65. On August 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion

asking the Court to issue another service packet with regard to “Nurse

Jackie”. The undersigned filed an order allowing Plaintiff extra time

to serve Jackie Preston and granting Plaintiff’s motion asking the

Court to provide another service packet to Plaintiff for Defendant

Preston and granting Plaintiff’s motion to order service on Defendant

Preston.

2

 Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment on April 21,

2008, and the Court ordered Defendants were not required to respond

to the motion for summary judgment until September 29, 2008. See

Docket Nos. 26 & 46.

-3-

See Docket No. 13.

The other defendants filed an answer [Docket No. 18]

to the complaint and a motion [Docket No. 19] to dismiss the

complaint as against “Nurse Jackie,” whom they asserted could

not be identified, on March 20, 2008. The motion to dismiss

filed March 20, 2008, is still pending before the Court.1 

On March 25, 2008, the Court issued a scheduling order,

requiring all motions to amend the complaint or to add

additional parties be filed no later than June 27, 2008. See

Docket No. 21.2 On July 28, 2008, Plaintiff lodged a proposed

first amended complaint. See Docket No. 57. Defendants contend

the motion to file an amended complaint at Docket No. 56, styled

as a motion to “conform” to the evidence, should be denied as

untimely and because it is an improper attempt to bolster

Plaintiff’s credibility with regard to his memory of the events

in question. See Docket No. 70.

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides

that a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his complaint

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 7
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-

when justice so requires. When deciding a motion to amend, the

Court’s should consider the prejudice to the opposing party and

the futility of allowing the amendment. See Schlachter-Jones v.

General Tele., 936 F.2d 435, 444 (9th Cir. 1991). Leave to

amend a complaint should be granted if it appears at all

possible that the plaintiff can correct a defect in his

complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000). “Thus Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to

pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality. This policy

is applied even more liberally to pro se litigants.” Eldridge

v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

The handwritten pro se document is to be

liberally construed.... [A] pro se complaint,

“however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to

“less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be

dismissed for failure to state a claim if it

appears “‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.’”

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976)

(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594,

596 (1972)). 

However, in exercising its discretion with regard to a

motion to amend a complaint filed after a responsive pleading,

the Court should consider the prejudice to the opposing party

and the futility of allowing the amendment. See SchlachterJones v. General Tele., 936 F.2d 435, 443-44 (9th Cir. 1991).

“[T]he policy of allowing the amendments of pleadings must be

tempered with considerations of undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 4 of 7
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 A defendant is not liable to a plaintiff for violation of the

plaintiff’s constitutional rights unless the defendant was personally

involved in the alleged constitutional violation. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must also establish that a defendant’s

conduct, allegedly violating the plaintiff’s rights, was within their

-5-

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment, futility of amendment, etc." Id. at 443 (internal

quotations omitted). 

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s proposed amendments to his

complaint is that Plaintiff switched the identities of Defendant

Barron and Defendant Olague with regard to which Defendant

actually fired the pepper spray and which Defendant was

responsible for improperly adjusting the pepper spray cannister

that was used on Plaintiff. The undersigned concludes Plaintiff

should be allowed to amend his original complaint to correct

facts which were revealed during discovery, particularly because

Plaintiff does not seek to add facts but to correct factual

statements regarding the identity of defendants. However, the

proposed amended complaint does not state any basis for

liability or any factual claims regarding Defendant Arpaio or

Defendant Preston. 

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint may not incorporate any

part of his original complaint by reference and supercedes his

original complaint. Therefore, the granting of Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file an amended complaint would preclude

Plaintiff from proceeding with his claims against Defendant

Arpaio and Defendant Preston, absent further pleading to again

amend the complaint.3 See Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 76

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 5 of 7
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

discretion and authority to control. See Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045;

Pinto v. Nettleship, 737 F.2d 130, 133 (1st Cir. 1984); Williams v.

Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1388 (11th Cir. 1982). 

-6-

(2d Cir. 2000); Campbell v. Towse, 99 F.3d 820, 825 (7th Cir.

1996); Lewis v. Sheahan, 35 F. Supp. 2d 633, 636 (N.D. Ill.

1999); Slater v. Marshall, 906 F. Supp. 256, 261 (E.D. Pa.

1995).

Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend his complaint be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff

should be allowed to amend his original complaint or to file an

amended complaint which corrects the original complaint as to

which Defendant acted improperly in calibrating the pepper spray

device used on Plaintiff and which Defendant actually fired the

pepper spray device. However, because granting Plaintiff’s

motion and allowing the proposed amended complaint to supercede

the original complaint would result in further pleading, i.e.,

the filing of a further amended complaint to allege causes of

action against Defendant Preston and Defendant Arpaio, the

undersigned recommends that Plaintiff be required to file a

proposed amended complaint containing all of his factual

allegations and legal causes of action with regard to each

defendant within a limited period of time.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 6 of 7
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-

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

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) 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.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver

of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact

and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 4th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 90 Filed 09/05/08 Page 7 of 7