Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01004/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01004-2/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Louis T. Cervantes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Richard Pratt, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV04-1004-PHX-SRB

ORDER

After this case was remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held

a status conference at which time Plaintiff stated his intention to file an amended complaint.

The Court advised that Plaintiff would have to file a motion to amend so that Defendants

could respond. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend which was denied on August 20, 2007.

In its order of denial the Court stated that the only matters that would be tried were the claims

for retaliation and excessive force presently framed in the existing amended complaint 

(doc. 237). Despite the Court’s language Plaintiff filed another Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint on October 12, 2007, seeking to add numerous parties and numerous

claims. Defendants responded in opposition. On January 7, 2008, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion to Amend be denied.

On January 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation and request for oral argument. The objections will be overruled. Oral

argument is denied.

Case 2:04-cv-01004-SRB-MEA Document 342 Filed 02/07/08 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

27

28

- 2 -

Although the Magistrate Judge clearly articulated the reasons for the denial of the

Motion to Amend and the reasons why the existing amended complaint cannot be expanded

as requested by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s objections do not address these concerns but instead

accuse the Magistrate Judge of being biased and prejudiced. This objection is yet another

example of the excessive and frivolous nature of Plaintiff’s pleadings. The Court notes that

the objections are 14 pages long and contain approximately 50 pages of attachments.

As the Court previously noted this case will be tried based on the amended complaint

and the matters remaining after the Court of Appeals’ decision. The only issues that are

before the Court and will be tried are the claims that Defendant Karkhoff used excessive

force against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation alleging the withholding of pain

medication and medical care. No other claims will be considered. No other Motions to

Amend may be filed.

IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Doc. 312).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is denied. (Doc. 268).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may not file any other Motions to Amend

the Complaint.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-01004-SRB-MEA Document 342 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 2