Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01202/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01202-2/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

 The scheduling order issued in this matter required all

motions to amend the complaint or to join “additional parties” be

filed by May 2, 2014. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Dean, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 13-01202 PHX GMS MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Terry Allred, Richard Rowe, ) 

Laura Miner, unknown Clinical ) 

Coordinator for ASPC-Lewis, )

Swift Transportation Company )

of Arizona, LLC, Common Market )

Equipment Co., LLC, )

Wexford Health Sources, Inc. )

)

 Defendants. )

_________________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW:

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Join

Additional Parties” as defendants in this matter, docketed May

2, 2014. See Doc. 97.1 Plaintiff seeks to “join Erica Johnson

(Patient Care Technician) and Sumi Erno (Complex Manager) as

additional parties to this action.” Defendants have not

responded to the motion.

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel in this

matter, filed a complaint on June 13, 2013, alleging a violation

Case 2:13-cv-01202-JJT-MEA Document 100 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 6
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

Plaintiff claims that while incarcerated in the

Arizona Department of Corrections, he was ordered

to perform labor for Defendants CME and Swift.

Plaintiff did not receive safety or specialized

training in moving heavy equipment or machinery,

but was tasked with moving heavy equipment and

machinery. Plaintiff alleges that on September 7,

2012, a negligently maintained 10-ton capacity

jack fell onto his right hand and crushed and

fractured multiple bones.

-2-

of his federal constitutional rights while incarcerated, and

also alleging state law-based claims against Defendants

Mireupow, Wexford, Common Market Equipment LLC (“CME”), and

Swift.2 Defendants CME and Swift answered the complaint on July

23, 2013. See Doc. 9. On August 1, 2013, Defendant Richard

Rowe filed a motion to dismiss. On August 15, 2013, Defendant

Wexford filed a motion to dismiss. In an order dated October 7,

2013, the Court granted the motions to dismiss, dismissed

Defendant Rowe from this matter, and ordered Plaintiff to file

an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted in the order

on or before November 6, 2013. See Doc. 21. Plaintiff docketed

the amended complaint, naming as Defendants Terry Allred,

Richard Rowe, Laura Miner, unknown Clinical Coordinator for

ASPC-Lewis, Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, Common

Market Equipment Co., LLC, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. See

Doc. 24. 

Defendant Rowe filed a motion to dismiss on October 29,

2013. Defendants Swift and Common Market Equipment answered the

complaint on November 5, 2013. Defendant Wexford filed a motion

to dismiss on November 11, 2013. Defendant Allred joined in

Case 2:13-cv-01202-JJT-MEA Document 100 Filed 05/22/14 Page 2 of 6
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 On February 25, 2014, the Court issued a scheduling order

requiring that discovery be completed by October 28, 2014. On February

10, 2014, Defendant Miner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim (Doc. 52). On March 10, 2014, Defendants Allred and

Rowe filed a motion to dismiss alleging Plaintiff did not

administratively exhaust his claims prior to filing suit.

-3-

Defendant Rowe’s motion to dismiss on December 2, 2013.

On January 22, 2014, the Court granted in part and

denied in part Defendant Rowe’s motion to dismiss; Plaintiff’s

negligence claim against Rowe was dismissed. The Court also

granted in part and denied in part Defendant Wexford’s motion to

dismiss, dismissing Count II and any portion of Count III

against Wexford predicated on responsibility for the actions of

Defendants Rowe, Allred, and the Unnamed Clinical Coordinator.

The Court determined Plaintiff’s respondeat superior negligence

claim based on Defendant Miner’s conduct remained. The Court

ordered Defendants Rowe, Allred, and Wexford to docket an

answer. See Doc. 45.

On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff moved to further amend

the complaint. See Doc. 46.3 Plaintiff sought leave to amend

the previously-amended complaint to, inter alia, join “Wexford’s

(presently unknown) Health Services Administrator for ASPC-Lewis

during September 2012" and to “[a]llege the (presently unknown)

Clinical Coordinator was a Wexford employee during September

2012.” Doc. 46 at 2. Defendants responded that: “A close

reading of Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint

demonstrates that the allegations against these ‘unnamed’

Defendants contain only conclusory allegations, and no well-pled

allegations of ‘facts’ upon which liability may be imposed.” 

Case 2:13-cv-01202-JJT-MEA Document 100 Filed 05/22/14 Page 3 of 6
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-

Finding that the proposed amended claims were not

futile, the Court granted the motion for leave to amend. 

Plaintiff’s motion to join parties avers: “Wexford has

indicated that the positions Health Services Administrator and

Clinical Coordinator were not in existence at ASPC-Lewis in

September 2012.” Doc. 97. Plaintiff further asserts:

“Plaintiff made discovery requests regarding persons/positions

responsible for ensuring Mr. Dean was returned for definitive

ORIF....” “In response to a discovery correspondence sent on Mr.

Dean’s behalf, Wexford has identified Erica Johnson (Patient

Care Technician) and Sumi Erno (Complex Manager) as “persons of

interest.” Id. Plaintiff also states: “Incidentally, Wexford

states the ASPC-Lewis Complex Manager ‘ceased employment’ on

September 8, 2012 (the day after Mr. Dean was returned from

Tempe St. Luke’s Hospital).” Id. “Accordingly, Mr. Dean

respectfully requests leave to join Erica Johnson (Patient Care

Technician) and Sumi Erno (Complex Manager)” as defendants in

this matter. Id.

Plaintiff has not lodged a proposed amended complaint

or otherwise explained how these potential defendants engaged in

acts constituting a violation of his federal constitutional

rights. The letter from a Wexford representative to Plaintiff’s

counsel which is attached to the motion states, after

identifying Sumi Erno and Erica Johnson as people whose names

are on Plaintiff’s medical records, “I am not sure if these are

the persons you are interested in....” and that other

individuals’ names appear on the medical records disclosed by

Case 2:13-cv-01202-JJT-MEA Document 100 Filed 05/22/14 Page 4 of 6
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 -5-

Defendants. The fact that another Defendant stated that these

two individuals were “persons of interest” would, at best,

indicate that these individuals might be witnesses to or have

information regarding the events at issue.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at

Doc. 97 be denied.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a

response to the objections. 

Pursuant to Rule 7.2(e)(1), Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to de novo appellate consideration of the issues. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

Case 2:13-cv-01202-JJT-MEA Document 100 Filed 05/22/14 Page 5 of 6
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 -6-

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of

fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01202-JJT-MEA Document 100 Filed 05/22/14 Page 6 of 6