Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02845/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02845-4/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

David Anthony Stokes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2845-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

On December 19, 2006, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff leave to amend

his complaint. Dkt. #28. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.

Dkt. #29.

I. Background.

Plaintiff is a prisoner currently confined at the Arizona State Prison in Florence,

Arizona. Beginning in May 2004, Plaintiff was detained on various criminal charges at a

Maricopa County jail known as “Towers Jail.” Plaintiff commenced this suit on December 9,

2004 by filing a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Towers Jail, the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. Dkt. #1. The complaint

alleges violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights based on overcrowded and

unsanitary conditions at Towers Jail and a denial of Plaintiff’s medically necessary diet. Id.

On October 14, 2005, the Court ordered Sheriff Arpaio to answer the complaint.

The Court dismissed Towers Jail and the MCSO because they are non-jural entities. Dkt. #4.

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 34 Filed 02/14/07 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

1

The Board members are Fulton Brock, Don Stapely, Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson,

and Mary Rose Garrido-Wilcox. Dkt. #24 ¶ 2.

2

The Court noted that this ruling was not prejudicial to Plaintiff because the

“deliberate indifference” standard applies to his claims whether they are brought under the

Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 3 n.2 (citations omitted).

- 2 -

On September 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint pursuant to

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff sought to add claims

under the Fourteenth Amendment and to add as defendants the members of the Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors. See Dkt. #24.1

In its December 19 order, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to

add Fourteenth Amendment claims because the addition of the claims would have been futile.

Dkt. #28 at 2-3.2

 With respect to the proposed Eighth Amendment claim against the Board

members, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state a § 1983

claim against the Board members in their official capacities. Id. at 3-4. The Court, however,

denied Plaintiff leave to amend to add the Board members as defendants on the ground that

Plaintiff had delayed unduly in seeking to amend the complaint. Id. at 5 (citing

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff

asks the Court to reconsider this ruling. Dkt. #29.

II. Analysis.

 This Circuit has made clear that “‘undue delay by itself is insufficient to justify

denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708,

712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 757, 758 (9th Cir. 1999)); see

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1983). “‘Only where prejudice

is shown or the movant acts in bad faith are courts protecting the judicial system or other

litigants when they deny leave to amend a pleading.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977,

980 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1973));

see Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Prejudice

is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a).’”) (citation omitted).

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 34 Filed 02/14/07 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 -

Defendant Arpaio did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint,

and the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure precluded Defendant from filing a response

to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. See LRCiv 7.2(g). It is thus unclear whether

Defendant believes that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith or that Defendant will be prejudiced

if Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. Before granting the motion for reconsideration, the

Court will give Defendant an opportunity to show that leave to amend should not be allowed

under Rule 15. Id.; see DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187 (“The party opposing amendment

bears the burden of showing prejudice.”).

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Arpaio shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration (Dkt. #29) by February 23, 2007. No reply shall be filed.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 34 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 3