Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02557/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02557-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Henry Armijo, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Edwin Nickerson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-02557-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Daniel Armijo filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint on April 18. 2019. 

This Court entered its Screening Order on June 14, 2019 dismissing the fictitiously named

defendants and the City of Mesa and allowing the claims against Defendant Edwin 

Nickerson to proceed to service. On October 29, 2019 the Court granted Defendant 

Nickerson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed Plaintiff’s state law 

claims against Defendant Nickerson because they were time barred. 

Plaintiff requested leave to file an Amended Complaint which was granted by the 

Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge then screened the proposed First Amended 

Complaint and allowed Counts I and II to proceed against Defendant Nickerson and against 

newly added Defendants Glover, Cameron, Hathcock, and Randy Doe. Because the First 

Amended Complaint did not correct the deficiencies identified in this Court’s June 14, 

2019 Order the Magistrate Judge explained in the Screening Order that she would issue a 

Report and Recommendation recommending the dismissal of the City of Mesa, and 

consistent with this Court’s prior Orders, would recommend dismissal of all Doe 

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 48 Filed 03/19/20 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

defendants except Randy Doe, Count III and IV, and the state law claims in Counts V, VI, 

and VII of the First Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge issued that Report and 

Recommendation on January 28, 2020 and Plaintiff filed timely written Objections.

Plaintiff’s Objections are limited to the recommended dismissal of the Doe 

Defendants (except Randy Doe) and the City of Mesa. He argues that the Doe Defendants 

should not be dismissed until after certain discovery was completed. But as this Court 

explained in its June 14, 2019 Order dismissing the Doe Defendants, discovery could be 

used to obtain the names of fictitiously named Defendants and then Plaintiff could seek 

leave to amend to name those Defendants. 

This Court had also previously dismissed Defendant City of Mesa explaining to 

Plaintiff that he could not bring a civil rights claim based on alleged negligence and also 

explaining that a failure to train claim against a municipality must allege facts to support 

that the alleged failure amounted to deliberate indifference. Plaintiff’s original complaint 

failed to allege how training was deficient and facts to support deliberate indifference. In 

her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to 

correct the deficiencies identified in the June 14, 2019 Order because he only added a vague 

and conclusory allegation that “the City of Mesa has a history of allowing its police officers 

to use excessive force, allowing its officers to get away with assaulting peaceful citizens.” 

Plaintiff’s Objection consists of a quotation from a booklet or document entitled 

“Prisoner’s Self-help Litigation Manual” which cited to a case from a district court in 

Michigan which he argues is different from the case cited by the Magistrate Judge. The 

Magistrate Judge’s citation is to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case and is also the same 

case cited by this Court in its June 14, 2019 Order explaining the pleading deficiencies in 

Plaintiff’s claim against the City of Mesa. This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that 

the newly added paragraph in the Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies this 

Court addressed in its June 14, 2019 Order and that the City of Mesa should again be 

dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 48 Filed 03/19/20 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

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, Defendant City 

of Mesa, and all Doe Defendants except Randy Doe.

Dated this 19th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 48 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 3