Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02120/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02120-1/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 1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this action.

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David L. Gossett, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert Stewart, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2120-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff David L. Gossett, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, Meadows Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.# 4.)1

 The Court ordered Defendants Fernandez, Bollweg, and

Daters to answer Plaintiff’s retaliation, excessive force, and failure to protect claims against

them in the Complaint and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of claims against

Warden Robert Stewart and Deputy Warden Alex Davenport. (Doc.# 6.) The motion will

be denied.

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

Case 2:08-cv-02120-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/21/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

(D. Ariz. 1992). 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff sued Warden Robert Stewart and Deputy Warden Alex

Davenport. As stated in the prior Order, Plaintiff alleged the following facts: 

Plaintiff is 55 years old. He has been diagnosed with a “chronic respiratory

disorder” and must use a cane or wheelchair due to multiple back injuries.

Since 2000, Plaintiff has been assigned to special medical needs housing that

units based on his medical conditions. On November 17, 2007, Plaintiff was

transferred to the Cook Unit and assigned to building 5, which complies with

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff had a Special Need

Order (SNO) from his treating physicians for assignment to a lower bunk.

In March 2008, Plaintiff was taken to the infirmary for a respiratory

problem and was initially examined by a nurse. When the nurse left the room

momentarily, Defendant Fernandez ordered Plaintiff to return to his housing

unit. Plaintiff explained to Fernandez that he was waiting to see the doctor,

but Fernandez escorted him out of the infirmary and put him in a fenced

enclosure. While in the enclosure, Plaintiff complained to Defendant

Davenport about Fernandez’s interference with his medical care. Plaintiff was

then returned to the infirmary. While Plaintiff received a breathing treatment

in the infirmary, Fernandez appeared, looking angry, and told Plaintiff that he

was putting him “on report” for disobeying a direct order. Following

completion of the treatment, Fernandez put Plaintiff back in the enclosure and

told him that he was going to be transferred to the Special Management Unit

(SMU) and placed in isolation. While confined at SMU, Plaintiff complained

in writing to Defendants Stewart and Davenport about Fernandez’s actions and

requested an investigation, but they failed to take action. Plaintiff was found

guilty of disobeying a direct order, but the charge was dismissed on appeal. 

On July 3, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred back to the Cook Unit and

assigned to Building 5. On July 8, 2008, he was informed that he was being

transferred to an upper bunk in a building without ADA accommodations.

Plaintiff informed staff of the SNO that required his assignment to a lower

bunk in an ADA-compliant facility. Fernandez was summoned and Plaintiff

repeated that he had a SNO and that his record documented his need to be

housed in an ADA-compliant facility. Stating that Plaintiff did not have a

reason to remain in the medical housing unit, Fernandez escorted Plaintiff to

the transportation enclosure. Without warning, Fernandez and Defendant

Bollweg snatched Plaintiff’s cane and violently twisted Plaintiff’s hands and

wrists behind his back for cuffing, causing Plaintiff to fall in extreme pain and

resulting in serious physical injury. Fernandez “drove” his knee into

Plaintiff’s back while he, Bollweg, and others continued to twist Plaintiff’s

hands, wrists, and arms beyond that necessary to cuff him. Defendant Dater

and other corrections staff witnessed the excessive use of force, but failed to

intervene to protect Plaintiff. Fernandez then ordered that Plaintiff be

Case 2:08-cv-02120-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

shackled. The shackles were so tightly applied, despite the absence of

resistence by Plaintiff, that he again suffered extreme and unnecessary pain.

Shortly after his placement in the transportation enclosure, Lieutenant Sutton

and Officer Madsen approached the enclosure and confirmed that Plaintiff had

a verified need to be housed in Building 5 and Plaintiff was taken to the

infirmary. There, Plaintiff received injections for pain and the physician

ordered Plaintiff’s meals to be delivered to him in Building 5. Fernandez and

housing unit staff charged Plaintiff with disobeying direct orders and

Fernandez also charged Plaintiff with using his cane as a weapon. Plaintiff

was found guilty of disobeying a direct order for which he received a verbal

reprimand and 15 days loss of phone privileges. The other charge was

dismissed. Plaintiff spoke to Stewart and Davenport regarding this incident

and requested that Fernandez, Bollweg, and others be disciplined, but they

took no action.

(Doc.# 5.)

Plaintiff contends that “Stewart and Davenport were clearly put on notice and knew

of Fernandez’s [retaliatory] propensities before the second incident involving excessive force

and retaliation occurred.” (Doc.# 6 at 3.) Essentially, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider

what it has already thought through. At most, Plaintiff alleges that these Defendants were

aware of one incident involving Fernandez that occurred months prior to the later incident.

One prior incident does not establish a propensity or give rise to an inference that Fernandez

was likely to use excessive force or retaliate. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be

denied.

Warnings

A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff must submit

an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply

Case 2:08-cv-02120-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/21/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Withdrawing the reference from the Magistrate Judge as to Plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration (doc.# 6).

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc.# 6.)

DATED this 20th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02120-DGC Document 8 Filed 01/21/09 Page 4 of 4