Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00009/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00009-0/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

Johann A. Bass, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Correctional Health Services et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00009-PHX-FJM (JFM)

ORDER

 The court has before it a Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge

screening plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 72). No objections have been filed by

the existing parties.

We raise two issues as a preliminary matter. Plaintiff’s original complaint had earlier

been screened (Doc. 7). Service was effected and a motion to dismiss was filed. (Doc.26).

The magistrate judge then granted plaintiff’s motion to amend. (Doc. 66). This mooted the

motion to dismiss (Doc. 69). In our view, at this point, no further screening was required

under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The review involved in granting a motion to amend would

have been adequate. Indeed, one pre-service screening is sufficient to satisfy §1915A(a).

Once service has been made, as here, a defendant has already been put through the burden

of appearing and thus the purpose of the statute (to relieve defendants of the burden of

answering groundless complaints) will have been satisfied. The court can always, at later

stages of the case, as here on a motion to amend, dismiss under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c).

Case 2:13-cv-00009-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/14 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 -

Secondly, even if it is thought to be helpful to screen post service, the better practice

would be to avoid a Report and Recommendation, which must be filed, and to which

objection can be made, and about which the district judge may disagree. Acknowledging that

a magistrate judge cannot decide a “matter dispositive of a claim or defense or a prisoner

petition challenging the conditions of confinement,” Rule 72(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., a post

service motion to amend could be considered and decided in the first instance by the district

judge. 

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the Report and Recommendation and accept it under

Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. 72). We note, however, that this case is now over one year

old and no scheduling order has been entered. Under Rule 16(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., the court

must issue a scheduling order as soon as practicable, “but in any event within the earlier of

120 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any

defendant has appeared.” Defendants had been served in May 2013 and appeared in July

2013 (doc. 26). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge shall issue a Scheduling Order no later than February 14,

2014, including, inter alia, cutoff dates for identification of Does, service of process,

discovery, dispositive motions, and a proposed pretrial order (4 months from the dispositive

motion deadline). See LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B). The schedule selected should ensure that this

case, if not decided sooner, will go to trial no later than January 2015. No extensions should

be granted that would interfere with this case being terminated within two years from its

filing. No further amendments to add claims or parties shall be allowed. 

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Defendant CH 904 is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

3. As to Defendant Maricopa County, Counts One and Two are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4. As to Defendant Alvarez, Count Two is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5. Answers to the First Amended Complaint are required as follows: (1) as to Count

One, from Defendants Cranmer, Friedman, Gaskins, Johnson, and Alvarez; (2) as to Count

Case 2:13-cv-00009-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/14 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 -

Two, from Defendants Johnson and Gaskins; and (3) as to Count Three, from Defendants

Johnson, Gaskins, and Maricopa County. 

6. Plaintiff shall serve Defendants Cranmer, Friedman, Gaskins, Johnson, Alvarez,

and Maricopa County, and these Defendants are required to respond as follows:

(a) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including both

summons and request for waiver forms for these Defendants.

(b) Plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of the Court

within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not

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

(c) The United States Marshal shall retain the Summons, a copy of the amended

complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(d) The United States Marshal shall notify these Defendants of the commencement

of this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d), Fed. R.

Civ. P. The notice to Defendants shall include a copy of this Order. The Marshal shall file

waivers of service of the summons or requests for waivers that were returned as

undeliverable as soon as they are received. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned

by Defendants within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal,

the Marshal shall:

(1) Personally serve copies of the Summons, the amended Complaint and this

Order upon Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.

(2) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for the Defendants, 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 the Defendants.

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

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

Summons, the 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 Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) and (5), Fed. R. Civ. P., unless otherwise ordered

Case 2:13-cv-00009-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/14 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 -

by the Court.

(e) Defendants who agree to waive service of the Summons and the amended

complaint shall return signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, and not to Plaintiff.

(f) Defendants shall answer the amended complaint or otherwise respond by

appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a), Fed.

R. Civ. P.

(g) Any answer or responsive pleading shall state the specific Defendant(s) by name

on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other

motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf

it is filed. 

DATED this 30th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00009-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/14 Page 4 of 4