Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04532/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04532-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earl Felton Crago, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph Pitz, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-04532-PHX-ROS (ESW)

ORDER 

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff timely filed a “Motion for Court’s Leave to Amend 

Pleadings” (Doc. 25).1 Plaintiff has lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint. The 

proposed Second Amended Complaint complies with LRCiv 15.1 as it indicates in what 

respect it differs from the First Amended Complaint. Defendants have filed a Response 

(Doc. 32) opposing the Motion (Doc. 25), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. 34).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “leave [to amend a pleading] 

shall be freely given when justice so requires.” “The power to grant leave to amend . . . is 

entrusted to the discretion of the district court, which ‘determines the propriety of a motion 

to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, 

prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.’” Serra v. Lappin, 600 F. 3d 1191, 1200 

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting William O. Gilley Enters. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 588 F.3d 659, 669 

n.8 (9th Cir. 2009)). “Generally, this determination should be performed with all 

 

1 The Court set January 2, 2020 as the deadline for filing motions to amend the complaint 

and to join additional parties. (Doc. 22 at 4).

Case 2:19-cv-04532-ROS Document 52 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 

880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

In its August 5, 2019 Screening Order (Doc. 8 at 7), the Court found that Count One 

of the First Amended Complaint stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim 

against Defendants Pitz, Larson, and Ryan. The proposed Second Amended Complaint 

seeks to add five additional Defendants to Count One. In their Response, Defendants assert 

that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are futile because the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint “does not allege that the new Defendants were actively involved in any alleged 

deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights and therefore fails to state a claim under § 1983.” (Doc. 

32 at 3). However, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants Pitz, Larson, Ryan, Thompson, 

McWilliams, Trujillo, Walker, and Standridge acted with deliberate indifference to the 

Plaintiff’s health and safety when they collectively decided to use prison gang members to 

control and manage the inmate population . . . .” (Lodged Second Amended Complaint at 

5) (emphasis added). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed amended Count One 

sufficiently states a deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Pitz, Larson, Ryan, 

Thompson, McWilliams, Trujillo, Walker, and Standridge for the reasons stated in the 

Court’s Screening Order concerning Count One of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8 

at 7). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 25) and will direct the Clerk of Court 

to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court’s Leave to Amend 

Pleadings” (Doc. 25). The Clerk of Court is directed to file the lodged Second Amended 

Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Pitz must answer Counts One, Two, 

and Three of the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Larson, Ryan, Thompson, 

McWilliams, Trujillo, Walker, and Standridge must answer Count One of the Second 

Amended Complaint.

Case 2:19-cv-04532-ROS Document 52 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including the Second 

Amended Complaint, this Order, and a copy of the Marshal’s Process Receipt & Return 

form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of Service of Summons 

form for Defendants Thompson, McWilliams, Trujillo, Walker, and Standridge.

2. Plaintiff shall complete2and 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.

3. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete 

service of the Summons and Second Amended Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days 

of the filing of the Second Amended 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).

4. The United States Marshal shall retain the Summons, a copy of the Second

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use. 

5. The United States Marshal must notify Defendants Thompson, McWilliams, 

Trujillo, Walker, and Standridge of the commencement of this action and request waiver 

of service of the summons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). The notice to Defendants must 

include a copy of 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:

 

2

If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections, 

Plaintiff shall list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee 

works. Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

Case 2:19-cv-04532-ROS Document 52 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

 (a) Personally serve copies of the Summons, Second Amended Complaint, 

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

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

for 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 Defendants. 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, Second 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2), unless otherwise 

ordered by the Court.

6. A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Second

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

Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

7. Defendants must answer the Second Amended Complaint or otherwise respond 

by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(a).

8. 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 17th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-04532-ROS Document 52 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 4