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 

Frankie Lee Rodriguez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01766-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (Doc. 22) 

and Amended Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine, (Doc. 2), 

regarding statutory screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (Doc. 

14), and Motion to Supplement, (Doc. 15). Plaintiff has also filed two motions for court 

intervention, (Docs. 29, 30), requesting supplies and documents from Defendants. 

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is currently incarcerated. The R&R 

recommends that the Court order Defendant Ryan to answer Counts I and II of the FAC; 

Defendants Ryan and Barrios answer Count IV of the FAC; Defendants Ryan, Fizer, and 

Miser answer Count V of the FAC; and that Defendants Moody and Barrios answer 

Count IX of the FAC. (Doc. 27 at 9-10.) It is recommended that the remaining counts of 

the FAC, Counts III, VI, VII, and VIII, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 6, 

8.) It is further recommended that the court grant Plaintiff’s motion to supplement. (Id.

at 10.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file 

Case 2:15-cv-01766-DLR-DMF Document 45 Filed 03/21/16 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 

objections to the R&R. (Id. at 10 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).) Plaintiff timely filed 

objections on February 16, 2016. (Doc. 34.) 

The Court has considered the objections and has reviewed the R&R de novo. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific 

objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, 

accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), and overrules 

Plaintiff’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate”). 

In addition, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions for court intervention. Plaintiff 

requests that the Court order Defendants to provide him with a full copy of two notice of 

electronic filings (NEFs) for two documents on the Court’s docket, Docs. 23 and 24. 

Plaintiff claims he has only received the first page. Plaintiff also requests that the Court 

order Defendants to provide him with paper, pencils, envelopes, and stamps. Both 

motions are denied. 

Defendants submitted an affidavit from the warden of Plaintiff’s facility attesting 

to the fact that the ADOC follows a policy written and distributed by the Court, which 

does not require providing prisoners with a full printout of the NEFs if they are filed by 

the prisoner. (Doc. 40-1, ¶ 7.) Full printouts are required for documents filed by defense 

counsel. (Id., ¶ 8.) The NEFs requested by Plaintiff are documents he prepared and filed, 

and thus need not be provided by Defendants. In addition, Defendants provided an 

affidavit from the prison librarian attesting that Plaintiff’s supply needs have been met. 

(Doc. 37-1.) Plaintiff does not dispute the affidavit, and thus the motion is denied as 

moot. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 27), is ACCEPTED, the Report and Recommendation lodged at 

(Doc. 22) is denied as moot, and Plaintiff’s motion to supplement is GRANTED. In 

Case 2:15-cv-01766-DLR-DMF Document 45 Filed 03/21/16 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 

addition, Plaintiff’s motions for court intervention, (Docs. 29, 30), are DENIED. 

Defendants must answer Plaintiff’s claims in the FAC as set forth in this Order. Counts 

III, VI, VII, and VIII of the FAC are dismissed. 

Dated this 21st day of March, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01766-DLR-DMF Document 45 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 3