Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01287/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01287-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael A. Dawes, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

John Doe, et al., 

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1287 PHX-PGR (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Pending

before the Court are Defendant Jeffrey Brandenberger's Motion for Summary Judgment

[Docket No. 30] and Plaintiff Michael Dawes' Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint [Docket

No. 43]. For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District

Court, after independent review of the record, grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary

Judgment and grant the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (subject to the limitations

described herein).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On November 16, 2005, Phoenix police officers responded to a Kmart store at 336

East Baseline road in Phoenix, Arizona. (Defendant's Statement of Facts ("DSOF"), ¶ 1.

Defendant Brandenberger, an officer with the Phoenix Police Department, was called to the

location to assist other officers who were investigating an armed robbery in which the

Plaintiff was involved. Id., ¶ 2. 

Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Brandenberger contacted a cashier who was a

witness to the robbery and took his statement. Id., ¶ 3. Officer Brandenberger then made

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 59 Filed 01/18/07 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

contact with Kmart's Loss Prevention Officer, another witness to the crime, and took his

statement. Id., ¶ 4. Officer Brandenberger then transported the witnesses to First Avenue

and Ardmore Street, where they identified the suspects who were being held in relation to

the robbery. Id., ¶ 5. Officer Brandenberger then transported these two witnesses back to

the Kmart store, along with the stolen merchandise recovered from the van in which the

Plaintiff was captured. Id., ¶ 6. 

In his original Complaint, Plaintiff named nine defendants. In its screening order, the

District Court dismissed eight of the defendants, requiring only Officer Brandenberger to

answer the Complaint. Plaintiff alleged that Officer Brandenberger had violated his

constitutional right by driving Plaintiff's van into the rear of the police car Plaintiff was

sitting in, causing Plaintiff back, neck and spinal injuries, and thereafter refused to take

Plaintiff to see a doctor for treatment. However, after Officer Brandenberger filed his

Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave of court to file an amended

complaint. In the proposed amended complaint, which is dated December 14, 2006 and

lodged at Docket Number 45, the Plaintiff has alleged that the van was not driven by Officer

Brandenberger, but by Officer George Contreras. The proposed amended complaint also

names Officer Brandenberger, Police Chief John Doe, Sergeant Jeffery Chapman, and

Officer Jose Garcia as defendants. 

II. Motion For Summary Judgment

In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Officer Brandenberger asserts that at no time

during the arrest was Plaintiff in his patrol car. DSOF, ¶ 7. Officer Brandenberger also

asserts that he did not at any time drive Plaintiff's van. Id., ¶ 8. Plaintiff's allegations in his

proposed amended complaint do not contradict these assertions. In the amended complaint,

he attributes statements to Officer Contreras that were originally attributed to Officer

Brandenberger. In fact, the only allegations against Officer Brandenberger that remain in the

amended complaint are that he "failed to make sure [Plaintiff] was taken was taken for

immediate medical attention." However, this allegation does not connect Officer

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 59 Filed 01/18/07 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

Brandenberger to the events except in his capacity as a supervisor. There are no allegations

in the amended complaint or in any of Plaintiff's responses to the Motion for Summary

Judgment that identify any other potential basis for relief. As a defendant's position as a

supervisor of a person who allegedly violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights does not

impose liability, Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), there is no basis in the amended complaint or other pleadings that

create a triable issue of fact on any claim against Officer Brandenberger. See Fed.R.Civ.P.,

56(c). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Officer Brandenberger's Motion

for Summary Judgment be granted.

III. Motion for Leave to Amend

In his Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he "has newly

discovered evidence that Officer George Contreras was driving the van that caused the

impact to the Phoenix Police car that [he] was in," and that it was Contreras who caused his

injuries and "refused [him] medical treatment after [the] accident." The motion was filed

before the January 12, 2007, deadline set in the Scheduling Order. Docket No. 28.

Additionally, federal policy strongly favors the determination of cases on their merits, and

there has been no showing of undue prejudice, bad faith, or a dilatory motive on Plaintiff's

part. Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

insofar as it relates to Officer Contreras, the Magistrate Judge recommends that leave be

granted for the filing of the amended complaint.

As indicated above, however, the amended complaint, in addition to the allegations

against Officers Brandenberger and Contreras, which have been addressed, also includes as

defendants Police Chief John Doe, Sergeant Jeffery Chapman and Officer Jose Garcia. The

allegations against Sergeant Chapman are identical to those alleged against Officer

Brandenberger and are equally inadequate to support a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional

rights. Similarly, the allegations against Police Chief Doe implicate him only in a

supervisory capacity and therefore also fail to state a claim. Finally, there are no allegations

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 59 Filed 01/18/07 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

of exactly what Officer Garcia did or failed to do or how he is alleged to have been

connected to the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. As such, he to is entitled to

be dismissed from the action. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that only Defendant Contreras be required

to answer the amended complaint.

IV. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order granting Defendant Brandenberger's Motion for

Summary Judgment [Docket No. 30].

The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the District Court issue an Order

granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [Docket No. 43] according to the terms setforth herein above, and further order that the amended complaint be filed by the Clerk of the

Court and served upon Officer Contreras.

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. 

However, 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 District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 06-1287-PHXPGR. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01287-PGR-JR Document 59 Filed 01/18/07 Page 4 of 4