Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00489/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00489-3/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Garrett J. Deetz, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-489-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend 

("Motion to Amend") (Doc. 39) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 54) 

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett. The Magistrate Judge 

determined in the R&R that granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile because 

Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 39-1) fails to sufficiently state an 

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. 

(Doc. 54 at 7). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Motion to Amend be 

denied. (Id.). 

 Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R ("Objection") (Doc. 56) on May 8, 2015. 

Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff's Objection. 

I. Background 

The Magistrate Judge provided the factual and procedural background in the R&R. 

(Doc. 54 at 2). The Court need not repeat that information here. Moreover, Plaintiff has 

not objected to any of the information in the background section. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

Case 2:13-cv-00489-DJH Document 68 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 

subject of an objection.”). 

II. Analysis 

 A. Standard of Review 

 The district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (same). The judge "may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). 

B. Procedural Matter 

 The docket entry for the Motion to Amend reflects that it was not filed in 

compliance with Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure ("LRCiv") and that 

Plaintiff's counsel was notified of that deficiency the day after it was filed. (Doc. 39). 

Nothing on the docket, however, indicates this deficiency was ever addressed by 

Plaintiff. 

 LRCiv 15.1(a) provides in pertinent part that "[a] party who moves for leave to 

amend a pleading must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to 

the motion, which must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it 

amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text 

to be added." A district court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have “the force 

of law.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citation omitted). The 

District Court of Arizona routinely denies amendment motions for failure to comply with 

LRCiv 15.1(a). See e.g., Bivins v. Ryan, 2013 WL 321847, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2013); 

J-Hanna v. Tucson Dodge Inc., 2012 WL 1957832, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 31, 2012); 

Huminski v. Heretia, 2011 WL 2910536, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2011). 

Case 2:13-cv-00489-DJH Document 68 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 Here, Plaintiff attached a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint to the 

Motion to Amend but failed to indicate in what respect it differs from the First Amended 

Complaint. As far as the Court can tell, the Second Amended Complaint differs 

substantially from the First Amended Complaint, and it is Plaintiff's obligation to 

demonstrate how by complying with LRCiv 15.1(a). Because the Motion to Amend fails 

to comply with the Local Rules, it will be denied. Although the Court is denying the 

Motion to Amend on different grounds than the R&R recommends, Plaintiff, should he 

choose to again seek leave to amend, would be wise to address the deficiencies identified 

in the R&R. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 54) recommending denial of the Motion to 

Amend is accepted, but not on the grounds recommended. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 

39) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 1st day of July, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-00489-DJH Document 68 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 3