Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02032/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02032-4/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Granville Lee Carroll, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2032-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

On September 22, 2010, Plaintiff Granville Lee Carroll, who is confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex-Globe, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a November 18, 2011

Order, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismissed the Complaint

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file an

amended complaint (Doc. 10). On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 11). In a January 28, 2011 Order, the Court: (1) granted the Motion for

Extension of Time; (2) dismissed Count II of the First Amended Complaint and Defendants

Maricopa County and Defendant Medical Administrator Doe; and (3) ordered Defendants

Jackson and Doe A6203 to answer Count III of the First Amended Complaint. The Court

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 16 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

found that Plaintiff stated a claim against the Doe Defendants named in Count I, but did not

order service on the Doe Defendants.

On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

and Reconsideration of Dismissal of Count II (Doc. 14). 

I. Motion to Amend

In his Motion, Plaintiff states that since the filing of the First Amended Complaint,

he has learned the names of the Doe Defendants described in Count I and asks that he be

allowed to file an amended complaint to properly name these Defendants. Plaintiff states that

the Defendants are Maricopa County Correctional Officers Dubbs and Herrera. Plaintiff did

not include an amended complaint with his motion.

The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to substitute Defendants Dubbs and Herrera

for Defendants John and James Doe. The Court will order service of the First Amended

Complaint on Defendants Dubbs and Herrera and will require them to answer Count I of the

First Amended Complaint.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff also asks that the Court reconsider its dismissal of Count II of the Amended

Complaint. The Court dismissed the claim because the Court determined Plaintiff’s facts

demonstrated, at best, that Defendants were negligent in treating Plaintiff’s broken hand and

that Plaintiff’s facts did not demonstrate medical deliberate indifference.

Plaintiff argues that Count II should be allowed to proceed as a malpractice claim

under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and did not invoke the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Federal

courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be

disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978).

The court will not infer allegations supporting federal jurisdiction; federal subject matter

jurisdiction must always be affirmatively alleged. Stock West, Inc., v. Confederated Tribes

of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A federal court is

presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.”).

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 16 Filed 03/25/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Because Plaintiff’s claims in Count II were brought under § 1983 and not under the

Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, dismissal of Count II was appropriate and the Court finds

no reason to reconsider the dismissal. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn with respect to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint and Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 14).

All other matters must remain with the Magistrate Judge as appropriate.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 14) is granted in part and denied in part:

(a) The Motion is granted to the extent that the Clerk of Court must

substitute Defendants Officer Dubbs and Officer Herrera for

Defendants John Doe (Maricopa County Correctional Officer) and

James Doe (Maricopa County Correctional Officer); and

(b) The Motion is denied with respect to all other relief requested.

(3) Defendants Dubbs and Herrera must answer Count I of the First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 11).

(4) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the First

Amended Complaint (Doc. 11), the January 28, 2011 Order, this Order, and both summons

and request for waiver forms for Defendants Dubbs and Herrera.

(5) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(6) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint on Defendants Dubbs and

Herrera within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this

Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(I).

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 16 Filed 03/25/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

(7) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the First

Amended Complaint, a copy of the January 28, 2011 Order, and a copy of this Order for

future use.

(8) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants Dubbs and Herrera of the

commencement of this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule

4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy

of the January 28, 2011 Order and this Order. The Marshal must immediately file signed

waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as

undeliverable or is not returned by a Defendant within 30 days from the date the

request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the Marshal must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, First Amended Complaint, the

January 28, 2011 Order, and this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the

summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, First Amended Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process

receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed

against the personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(9) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and First

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff.

(10) Defendants Dubbs and Herrera must answer Count I of the First Amended

Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the

applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 16 Filed 03/25/11 Page 4 of 5
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 -

(11) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 16 Filed 03/25/11 Page 5 of 5