Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00449/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00449-0/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

Thomas Stewart, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Detention Officer A.M. Deans,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-449-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

The Court held a second Final Pretrial Conference on January 20, 2006. This Order

will reflect decisions made at that conference.

Plaintiff sued a detention officer by the name of A.M . Deans, badge number A7377.

T he County maintains that no such officer exists. In its Order of March 17, 2005, the Court

invited Defendants to provide evidence that A.M. Deans does not exist. See Doc. #27.

Defendant s did not provide the evidence as requested. The Court noted this fact in an

Order dated August 4, 2005 and stated that a Final Pretrial Conference would be scheduled.

See Doc. #31.

On November 9, 2005, 18 months after the motion deadline had passed and more

than seven months after the Court had invited additional evidence, Defendants moved for

summary judgment with respect to Defendant A.M. Deans. Defendants provided evidence

that such an officer does not exist. The Court viewed the motion as untimely. At the final

Case 2:03-cv-00449-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

pretrial conference on December 2, 2005, however, Plaintiff admitted that he had no

evidence that A.M. Deans existed. As a result of a discussion on the record, the Court

concluded that Defendants should conduct a search for information concerning t he

p ossible identification of the officers on duty during the events in question and p rovide

that informat ion to Plaintiff, and that the parties and the Court should then decide whether

there is a triable issue in this case. The Final Pretrial Conference was continued to January

20, 2006 for this purpose.

The following is clear after the January 20, 2006 hearing: There is no evidence of the

existence of an officer A.M. Deans with badge number A7377. Such an individual does not

appear in the County’s records. The County no longer retains records concerning the

officers on duty on September 25 and 26, 2002, the dates at issue in this case. Thus, it is

not possible t o review County records and determine which officers were in a position to

provide Plaintiff wit h medication on the dates in question. Plaintiff does assert, however,

that he saw the officer in question in the tower on March 27, 2003. Records provided by

the County suggest that an Officer Anissa Dreas, badge number A7362, was the same

individual he previously had described as A.M. Deans – the thin, African American woman

with short hair who denied him medication on September 25 and 26, 2002. Plaintiff candidly

admitted during the hearing t hat he does not know the name or badge number of the

woman he saw in t he t ower and has no proof that she is Anissa Dreas. He is confident,

however, that it is the same woman who denied him medicat ion on September 25 and 26,

2002. The County, on the other hand, has had no opportunity to investigate whether

Officer Dreas was working with Plaintiff on September 25-26, 2002, or whether she is even

the woman described by Defendant. 

In a normal civil case, the Court would be inclined t o dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. The

Final Pretrial Conference is not the place for a plaintiff to make new allegations that

essentially amend his complaint. The Court recognizes, however, t hat Plaintiff is a pro se

lit igant and an inmate. His resources are limited. He only recently received information

from the County regarding the possible identity of the woman in question as Anissa Dreas.

Case 2:03-cv-00449-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

At the same time, although t he deadline for filing dispositive motions passed long

ago, the County is now faced with a new allegation and new information. In fairness, the

County should be given an opportunity to address the allegation.

Therefore, the Court ordered t hat the County should investigate whether Anissa

Dreas was working in or around Plaintiff’s location on September 25-26, 2002, and whether

she is the individual Plaintiff has described. If the County concludes from this

investigation that there is a basis for seeking summary judgment, Defendant s may file a

motion for summary judgment on or before February 17, 2006. Plaintiff will be given the

normal time to file a response, and Defendants may reply. If Defendants conclude that

there is no basis for a motion for summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court on

February 17, 2006. If no motion is filed, or if the County’s motion is filed and subsequently

denied, the Court will reschedule the Final Pretrial Conference.

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00449-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 3