Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02557/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02557-0/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

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)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON: SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

By separate Order, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s seven-count First Amended 

Complaint. The undersigned allowed Counts I and II to proceed against Defendants 

Nickerson, Glover, Cameron, Hathcock, and Randy Doe for the reasons stated in the 

Court’s June 14, 2019 Order (Doc. 8) screening the original Complaint. 

In its June 14, 2019 Screening Order, the Court dismissed Count III of the original 

Complaint. (Id. at 8). The First Amended Complaint does not amend the factual 

allegations set forth in Count III. It is therefore recommended that the Court dismiss Count 

III of the First Amended Complaint. 

Count IV of the original Complaint presented a negligent training and failure-totrain claim against the City of Mesa. (Doc. 1 at 11). In its original Screening Order, the 

Court explained that negligence is insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. 8 at 6)

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 42 Filed 01/28/20 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

(citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986)). Regarding the failure to train 

claim, the Court found that Plaintiff did not identify how the training Mesa police officers 

received was deficient, much less facts to support that the City of Mesa made a deliberate 

choice to provide inadequate training.1 (Id.). The undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed 

to correct the noted deficiencies in his First Amended Complaint. Paragraph 36 of the 

First Amended Complaint adds only the 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. This shows a policy, practice or 

custom of the City of Mesa that sanctions the use of excessive force against peaceful 

citizens. . . .” The undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the City of Mesa from 

the First Amended Complaint.

The First Amended Complaint names the Doe Defendants that the Court dismissed 

from the original Complaint. Consistent with that Order (Doc. 8 at 5, 8), it is recommended 

that the Court dismiss the Doe Defendants from the First Amended Complaint. This 

recommendation, however, does not include police officer Randy Doe, who has been 

required to answer Counts I and II. 

Finally, the First Amended Complaint realleges the state law claims (Counts V, VI, 

and VII) that were presented in the original Complaint. The Court dismissed those claims 

as time-barred. (Doc. 26). It is therefore recommended that the Court dismiss Counts V, 

VI, and VII from the First Amended Complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, the 

1 A failure to train claim requires a plaintiff to allege facts supporting that not only 

was particular training inadequate, but also that such inadequacy was the result of “a 

‘deliberate’ or ‘conscious’ choice” on the part of the defendant. See Clement v. Gomez, 

298 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must allege facts to support that “in light of 

the duties assigned to specific officers or employees, the need for more or different training 

is [so] obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in violations of constitutional rights, 

that the policy[]makers . . . can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to 

the need.”) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989)). 

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 42 Filed 01/28/20 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

City of Mesa, and all Doe Defendants except Randy Doe from the First Amended 

Complaint.

The above recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response 

to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without 

further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated this 27th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02557-SRB-ESW Document 42 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3