Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00237/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00237-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Williams,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

CO II B. Griffeth, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0237-PHX-PGR (MEA)

 

 ORDER

 

Having considered Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation

in light of the plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28),

the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) should be denied.

At issue is the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to add a new

defendant, Correctional Major Lao, to his Eighth Amendment claim. Pursuant to

the Court’s original screening order, the only remaining claim of the original

complaint is an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Griffeth and Evans

for leaving the plaintiff in his cell for more than fifteen minutes after they

discharged an entire canister of pepper spray into the cell; the Court dismissed

the plaintiff’s claims arising from the defendants’ decision to use pepper spray

Case 2:10-cv-00237-PGR Document 33 Filed 11/05/10 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

and the manner in which they used it. In his proposed amended complaint, the

plaintiff alleges that Lao, by failing to meet with the plaintiff as he promised he

would, failed to correct the situation using non-forceful means before it escalated

to the level that resulted in the pepper-spraying. The defendants argue,

presumably pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), that the proposed addition is futile

because the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim against Lao. The

Magistrate Judge concluded that the proposed amended complaint fails to state a

claim against Lao pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Whether viewed pursuant to the futility standard of Rule 15(a) or the failure

to state a claim standard under § 1915(e) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), which in

practical effect constitute the same standard, the Court agrees that the plaintiff’s

allegations against Lao do not state an Eighth Amendment claim even when

liberally construed. First, since the Court has already ruled that the use of pepper

spray on the plaintiff did not constitute a constitutional violation, Lao’s alleged

failure to intervene to prevent the pepper-spraying does not constitute a

constitutional violation, and (2) there are no allegations in the proposed amended

complaint that Lao knew that the plaintiff had been left in his cell for an

unreasonable amount of time after pepper spray had been discharged into his

cell. Therefore,

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

(Doc. 25) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00237-PGR Document 33 Filed 11/05/10 Page 2 of 2