Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02044/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02044-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RANDAL SCOT COMBS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-2044 PHX JWS (MEA)

)

MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OFFICE, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK:

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. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

file an amended complaint (Docket No. 33). Also pending are

Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 35) for leave to file this

amended complaint on other than a court-approved form and

Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 34) to consolidate this matter

with another section 1983 suit.

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 13
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 The undersigned incorrectly granted Plaintiff permission to

file the second amended complaint because the undersigned did not note

Plaintiff had previously filed an amended complaint. See Docket No.

19. 

-2-

I Procedural background

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this matter on

August 25, 2006, which was dismissed with leave to amend, and

filed his first amended complaint on October 31, 2006.

Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint on December 8, 2006,

which complaint was docketed on December 27, 2006. Plaintiff

lodged his third amended complaint on March 12, 2007. Although

Plaintiff’s motion is styled as one for leave to file a second

amended complaint, the complaint lodged with the motion would

actually be the third amended complaint.

On November 15, 2006, the Court dismissed all of the

claims stated in the amended complaint except Count II and all

of the defendants named in the amended complaint except

Defendant Friedman. See Docket No. 8. Plaintiff lodged his

second amended complaint on December 8, 2006. See Docket No.

14. Defendant Friedman was served with the amended complaint on

December 6, 2006. See Docket No. 15. Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint was docketed on December 27, 2006, naming

Detention Officers Abrego, Waters, Nyakondo, Whitney, Camandini,

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Dr. Friedman, and the

Maricopa County Health Services department as Defendants. See

Docket No. 20.1 

Plaintiff, presently incarcerated in the Eyman Unit of

the Arizona State Prison in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 13
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-

complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August

25, 2006, regarding his pre-trial detention at the Towers Jail

facility. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31,

2006. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff alleged violation of his

constitutional rights by the defendants while he was a pre-trial

detainee at the Maricopa County Towers Jail facility. Plaintiff

named Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the

Maricopa County Health Services department, Joseph Arpaio, and

“Dr. Freidman and his staff” as defendants. Plaintiff alleged

Defendants exhibited “gross negligence” by deliberately refusing

to assign him to a lower bunk due to his seizures, resulting in

his falling out of his bunk to the floor “while in a seizure”

resulting in “head, neck and back injuries...” Id. at 4 (Count

I). Plaintiff also alleged Dr. Freidman violated his Eight

Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs, i.e., refusing to prescribe Dilantin for

his seizures prior to his injury and by not allowing Plaintiff

to be seen by a neurologist after his injury. Id. at 5 (Count

II). The amended complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive

relief and monetary damages against Defendants. Id. at 7. 

As stated supra, on November 15, 2006, the Court

dismissed all of the claims stated in the amended complaint

except Count II and all of the defendants named in the amended

complaint except Defendant Freidman. See Docket No. 8. The

Court concluded the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office was not an

entity amenable to suit pursuant to section 1983. See id. at 3.

The Court further concluded Plaintiff had not stated a section

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 13
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-

1983 “policy or custom” claim against the Maricopa County Health

Services department and, accordingly, dismissed this defendant.

Id. at 3-4. The Court noted there is no respondeat superior

liability pursuant to section 1983 and dismissed Defendant

Arpaio. Id. at 4. The Court dismissed Count I of the complaint

because Plaintiff had not linked the act of not placing him in

a lower bunk to any named defendant. Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff lodged his second amended complaint on

December 8, 2006. See Docket No. 14. Plaintiff named as

Defendants the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and Detention

Officers Abrego, Waters, Whitney, Camandini, Nyakondo, the

Maricopa County Health Services department, and Dr. Freidman as

Defendants. Docket No. 20. Plaintiff asserted Detention

Officer Abrego assigned him to an upper bunk despite Defendant

Freidman’s notice to Defendant Abrego that Plaintiff needed a

lower bunk. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further contends that

Detention Officers Waters, Nyakondo, Camandini, Whitney, and

Abrego were each at different times on different days asked to

relocate Plaintiff to a lower bunk, that Plaintiff showed these

individuals his medical order, and that each officer ignored his

requests. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges the individual

defendants did not follow the policy and customs of the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office and the Maricopa County Health Services

department by forcing him to sleep in an upper bunk despite a

medical order that he should be assigned a lower bunk. Id. at

4. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint seeks declaratory and

injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive monetary

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 13
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-

damages against all named defendants.

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (captioned as

“Second Amended Complaint”) was lodged March 12, 2007, in tandem

with a “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and

Motion for Consolidation of Claims” and a “Motion for Leave to

File Second Amended Complaint on Other than Court-Approved

Form.” See Docket No. 34, Docket No. 35. Plaintiff’s motion

for “consolidation of claims” seeks to consolidate this case

with Combs v. Arpaio, et al., No. 2:06 CV 2680 JWS MEA. 

In Plaintiff’s most recent, third amended complaint,

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to name as defendants

Joseph Arpaio and the individual members of the Maricopa County

Board of Supervisors, and Detention Officers Waters, Camandini,

Nyakonda, Abrego, Myers and Whitney, who were previously named,

and Detention Officer Kannar, who was not previously named, and

Defendant Dr. Freidman. See Docket No. 34. Plaintiff alleges

the same essential factual basis for his claims of violation of

his Eighth Amendment rights. However, Plaintiff now

additionally asserts that, at the time of his admission to the

Towers Jail, he suffered from a “rare allergy to metal and metal

alloys.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff also adds the factual allegation

that Defendant Abrego placed him in handcuffs despite knowing of

this alleged allergy and that Defendant Myers did not intervene

in this act. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant

Kannar also placed him in metal handcuffs despite knowledge of

his alleged allergy and that Defendant Myers again did not

intervene. Id. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of being

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 13
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 -6-

placed in metal handcuffs despite his allergy, he experienced

swelling, itching, rashes and extreme pain. Id.

Plaintiff alleges Sheriff Arpaio is liable to him

because he failed to adequately train the individual Detention

Officers who caused his constitutional injuries. Id. at 7.

Plaintiff asserts the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are

liable to him because they knew or should have known about the

unconstitutionally crowded living conditions experienced by

detainees at the Towers Jail and that they deliberately caused

these conditions by failing to adequately fund the jail. Id. at

7-8. Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights pursuant to

the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated, and also states

causes of action pursuant to state law, i.e., medical

malpractice, gross negligence, negligence, and negligent

infliction of emotional distress. Id. Plaintiff seeks

declaratory relief, and compensatory and punitive damages. Id.

II Analysis

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). Additionally, the

Court must screen all cases in which an inmate or detainee seeks

redress from a governmental entity or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (2006). The Court must

identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any

portion of the complaint, if it “is frivolous, malicious, or

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 6 of 13
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-

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or

“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

In exercising its discretion with regard to

the amendment of pleadings, a court must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule

15--to facilitate decision on the merits

rather than on the pleadings or

technicalities. This court has noted on

several occasions that the Supreme Court has

instructed the lower federal courts to heed

carefully the command of Rule 15(a), F[ed].

R. Civ. P., by freely granting leave to amend

when justice so requires. 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).

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 Schlachter-Jones 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 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).

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.

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 7 of 13
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 -8-

2000).

 To state a claim for violation of his civil rights, a

plaintiff must allege that a specific individual personally

participated in the constitutional deprivation or that a

specific governmental supervisory official was aware of

widespread abuses and acted with deliberate indifference to the

plaintiff’s constitutional rights or failed to take action to

prevent further misconduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,

377, 96 S. Ct. 598, 607 (1976); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

568 (9th Cir. 1987). There is no respondeat superior liability

pursuant to section 1983. To state a claim against a government

official, the civil rights plaintiff must allege how the

official individually personally participated in the

constitutional deprivation or that a governmental supervisory

official was aware of the widespread abuses and acted with

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights

or failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. See

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. at 377; King, 814 F.2d at 568.

The Court notes no scheduling order has issued and no

discovery has occurred in this matter. This matter has not been

pending for a lengthy period of time since issuance of the

service order in November of 2006. With regard to Defendant

Freidman, the only defendant who has been served and who has

appeared in this matter, Plaintiff does not allege a new factual

basis for his claims. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to name

specific defendants who were each individually deliberately

indifferent to his medical needs, i.e., Detention Officers

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 8 of 13
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 -9-

Waters, Camandini, Nyakonda, Abrego, Myers, Whitney, and Kannar,

the Court concludes the amendment should be allowed and that the

Court should order Plaintiff return service packets to the Court

for these Defendants and that the Court should order these

Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s allegation that they were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

However, with regard to Plaintiff’s attempts to add the

individual members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

as defendants, the Court believes the amendment should not be

allowed. There is not a sufficient nexus between Plaintiff’s

alleged injury, i.e., falling from an upper bunk, and the

alleged act of the Supervisors, i.e., negligently failing to

provide more funding to the Sheriff’s department, to state a

claim for relief pursuant to section 1983. Plaintiff’s

allegations do not state a claim that the members of the

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are liable for any alleged

violation of his constitutional rights. “A plaintiff must allege

facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was

personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.”

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff has not set forth any allegations to show that these

individuals had any personal involvement in his assignment to an

upper bunk despite a medical order requiring him to be assigned

a lower bunk. There is no respondeat superior liability

pursuant to section 1983, so these proposed defendants’ position

as the supervisors of a person who was the supervisor of persons

who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 9 of 13
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

 Plaintiff is warned that his repeated filing of complaints

naming defendants who are immune from suit or naming defendants who

are immune from monetary damages in a suit for such damages may result

in a finding Plaintiff has committed “three strikes” and may no longer

be granted permission to file complaints and proceed in forma

pauperis. Additionally, or alternatively, Plaintiff’s repeated filing

of frivolous motions and complaints may lead to Plaintiff being

declared a “vexatious litigant” pursuant to the All Writs Act at 28

U.S.C. § 1651 (2006).

-10-

not impose liability. Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436

U.S. 658, 691-92, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036-37 (1978); Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Additionally, Plaintiff is advised, again, that

Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and the

Maricopa County Health Services department are not proper

defendants in this or any other section 1983 matter.

Furthermore, and notably, Plaintiff has alleged the individual

defendants are liable because they did not follow appropriate

procedures established by these county entities, which counters

his claims of “municipal” liability. Furthermore, Plaintiff has

not adequately alleged a failure to train basis for liability on

the part of Sheriff Arpaio, and he should not be allowed to add

Sheriff Arpaio as a defendant in this matter.2

The Court concludes that the motion to amend should

also be denied with respect to allowing Plaintiff to add a claim

regarding his allergy to metal and being placed in handcuffs

because Plaintiff alleges events which would more properly be

addressed in a separate section 1983 suit, and which is the

subject of Plaintiff’s other existing section 1983 suit, and

this claim for relief alleges actions by individuals who have

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 10 of 13
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 -11-

not been named as defendants in this suit.

The Court further concludes Plaintiff should be allowed

to add state law-based claims to this suit. Plaintiff may,

apparently, sue the named defendants for negligence pursuant to

state law. See Flanders v. Maricopa County, 203 Ariz. 368, 54

P.3d 837 (Ct. App. 2002). 

Motion to consolidate

In a lawsuit docketed as 2:06 CV 02680 JWS MEA,

Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when

Detention Officer Abrego and Sergeant Myers required him to be

hand-cuffed in metal cuffs, resulting in “perforation of skin,

pain, swelling, discomfort” and an elevated risk of infection as

a result of being placed in the metal cuffs. See No. 06 CV

02680, Docket No. 13. Plaintiff alleges a second count on this

basis against Detention Officer Kannar Plaintiff names as

defendants Sheriff Arpaio, Sergeant Myers, Detention Officer

Kannar, and Detention Officer Abrego. Id. In that matter,

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and

compensatory and punitive monetary damages. 

The Court recommends these cases not be consolidated.

The cases deal with separate facts and defendants, and pose

distinct issues with regard to possible defenses, i.e.,

exhaustion and de minimus harm. 

III Conclusion

Plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint to

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 11 of 13
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 -12-

add the individual defendants, but should not be allowed to

amend his complaint to add Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors as Defendants. Plaintiff should not

be allowed to amend his complaint to add a cause of action which

he is already litigating in a separate matter. Additionally,

the Court recommends these cases not be consolidated. because

they deal with separate facts and defendants, and pose distinct

issues with regard to possible defenses.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (Docket No. 33) be granted to the extent

stated in this Report and Recommendation. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

consolidate this matter with Docket No. 2:06 CV 2680 be denied.

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. 

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. 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

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 12 of 13
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 -13-

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 19th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02044-JWS Document 36 Filed 03/20/07 Page 13 of 13