Hernandez v. Arpaio et al
Court Docket Sheet

District of Arizona

2:2016-cv-01618 (azd)

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number 0970-13006918 filed by Oscar Hernandez. (documents signed by Jeffrey Finley, but submitted using the log-in and password belonging to attorney Garrett Wotkyns)

Case 2: 16-cv-01618-JJT-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 6 LILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT (O I ke N Jeffrey R. Finley (Bar No, 009683) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, Arizona 85253 Telephone: (480) 315-3840 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 jfinley@schneiderwallace.com * * * * mt in \ ON Tmnvwvarrararrera O SAAT rri IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WA ള്ള * sa Form RAKE ਤੁੰਮ I WA TI P} Asia P umum, MIRTIT Twtrrrrrkitutury. Tertretern LILLIMIALALLEMAGALLArtertretervtrhwimmtmTTTTTTTTTTTT OSCAR HERNANDEZ wiwa Case No. Plaintiff, fya au PA N pen U * V. P YA * * U} H tw-) of} mot JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, the Maricopa County Sheriff; Larry Kratzer; and Sgt. Fieldcamp, Defendant. med r-R N R 14 Plaintiff, through counsel, hereby makes his complaint against the Defendant as follows: po HHH ជ yi i wrn Frerer L) اعلم ۔ 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, in the United States of America, and has resided at said location at all times relevant hereto; H A U I DT f 8 9 8 6-5-5:. 2. Defendant Joseph Arpaio is a resident of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, in the punk + + te + mme powd S6 {} do. puk VA munk Hf t pad I CO tod ini fo Arrondka U-ON +-3. Defendant Arpaio is the elected sheriff of Maricopa County, State of Arizona. N Normt} rced 1 Case 2: 16-cv-01618-JJT-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 6 HHHHH A 4. Defendant Fieldcamp is a sergeant employed by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office i 1 bl) I 2 or otherwise working at the direction of Defendant Arpaio; T g f +-5. Defendant Kratzer is employed by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office or otherwise f S N S AWAugupuusagenter working at the direction of Defendant Arapaio; I g 6. Plaintiff brings this cause of action under 42 U. S. C. Section 1983 for violation of his T BEENDERWIJSINSTELLIFERAJAALSAATEJA civil rights; 7. Jurisdiction is proper within this court under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, w S 1 and under 28 U. S. C. 1331 as this matter involves a case arising under the yw ليبيا ليبيا t i sw Constitution and the laws of the United States; Pne * * Y T t S T 8. At various times over the last several years the Defendant Arpaio has conducted himself under color of law, but has been determined to be operating outside of the + a N 8 0 3 E F = 0 0 a un w N R Hima 9. The Defendant Arpaio has been ordered by the United States District Court for the المسم t punang District of Arizona to refrain from such conduct but has shown a consistent pattern of S Fre S S S S t abuse of rights and discriminatory conduct. T t T 10. The Defendants conduct has been so consistently violative of individual's civil S I I 1 wwwwwrthrer intl rights that the Federal Court has appointed a monitor to attempt to verify and oversee g the conduct of the Defendant; t Case 2: 16-cv-01618-JJT-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 6 11. Despite the presence of a monitor to attempt to reign in Defendant's illegal conduct, HMM + FHM Hrt rmH mi W U * J E TwH wthorHHHHHH W Defendant has continued to conduct himself under the color of the law while continuously violating the rights of the persons within the jurisdiction of this court; fu OD (fQ ETSINS * * HTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT 12. On or about December 3, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested by police officers for the city + + mi N m t o \ ON 000 I t. A pen-a riw wt + + HHH tul HY pada TE TIJ revolt to id errt N (I9 phlwe CO F O) R IIII and was accused of being in a Mexican gang; (IQ W NAARAALLURRAREN -MHHH + S ta HiH 1) www pome mlw mo kompad por 4 mm ted + wy (JO *-->. md rea * * ol) w N N D O pod involved in any robbery: HettittHHHHHHH-N m + n o noa e = e " 2 ° C * * 8 15. The county attorney dropped the charges against Plaintiff on or about May 27, 2014; 1. Y A, 16. However, Plaintiff had remained incarcerated from December 3, 2013 until June 2, mit D HOWEVE FY Cİ VIU. pw N YHYRHYTHM umumiy strmmmmtemmin K. لها ܢ ܀ I NI + 17. During the time of his incarceration, Plaintiff was subjected to various forms of arcer CS hmd + YA} {} * O O + * * torture and other conduct that violated his civil rights; pelet + d så) 18. At one point in time, Plaintiff was accused of theft of bread, an allegation which was + M + w SE! + d (Q + N ന്ന H we HR ܓ݁ܶܝܪ U CO Het 19. As a direct result of the allegation of theft, Plaintiff was dragged to the isolation area html + pare V}-CŁY Trik tritt of Tower 6 where he wa pril me pose ted to a b * MH C) O-i tama end bat + rrit om t-3 HHHH {A V * *} med A TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTwwwwwwarawan TTTTTTwrarrrrrrrrrrrererar. KHATTTTTTTTTTTTTennmanmurarearrarraurerrarururarararraurarrangeg Defendant, or otherwise with the consent of the Defendant;-YL. mir N N N Case 2: 16-cv-01618-JJT-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 6 1 20. During the beating. Plaintiff was kicked and punched, and handcuffs that he was E I VAS wearing at the time caused a deep cut in his left arm; i H 21. Plaintiff, who suffers from epilepsy, had a seizure and was transported to the kad Left a N psychiatric ward of the medical unit; 22. At the psychiatric ward, when Plaintiff awoke, his jailors, at the direction of the e nepam e Hy E 5 Oca N a un pua N Defendant or with his consent, attempted to convince the Plaintiff that he had 1 i voda 1 attempted suicide causing the injury to his wrist; Met S S pw 23. While in the psychiatric unit, and as a direct result of the orders of Defendant Arpaio 3 e a a or with his consent, Plaintiff was stripped naked and restrained, with chains, in a bed; C S S 1 Տ S a Fwd 24. While restrained in the bed, the jailors, at the order of Defendant, tightened the t I a a ev T t YV 4 chains so that Plaintiff was subjected to a torture that was similar to the " rack; " HIIP {25. During the torture, Plaintiff exclaimed that " you can' t do this to me, this is America " S and that his sons were citizens; i S S 4 5 26. The Defendant F responded that he didn' t " give a f * * * * * about his sons and that he od + * * * *) id t g jot prowd S Prvni rat pt Pent S N-8-0 5 5 m E-F 27. Plaintiff was restrained in the bed for approximately eighteen hours during which 1 I co time he suffered seizures, even urinating and excreting upon himself; I I e S I tr I I + pat 1 pol S f (N m {O + 28. Plaintiff did not attempt to commit suicide, but admitted to this act in order to obtain i S I a ad S A W 4 his medications and to stop the beatings and torture; (2 2 2 Case 2: 16-cv-01618-JJT-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 6 29. During his incarceration, Plaintiff was placed in isolation for approximately ten (10) a rra pod a (mt m days, during which time he was kept naked; a + 30. During this same time he was denied water and food for approximately 2% days I g t S tav 1) a S M resulting in Plaintiff being forced to drink his own urine at one point; t e I e o co y a un b w N – + 31. During this time, Plaintiff requested medication for his seizures; g S S 32. Plaintiff was advised that he needed to stop complaining about the treatment that he ret t 1 e I g a t had received; 33. Plaintiff was advised that he needed to admit that he attempted suicide, in order to rede a S explain the injury to his wrist; 3 I 1 11 34. While incarcerated, plaintiff was accused of being a " faker " and that his seizures ref im AJ S a a bood S I I 1 were not real; ير 35. Plaintiff was first diagnosed with epilepsy in 2009; I S I 36. Plaintiff has been receiving Dilantin since that time; I S 1 5 37. Plaintiff was also subjected to a thirty day stay in isolation for no apparent reason; لبیا S 1 I 6 38. Plaintiff while wrongfully incarcerated at the Maricopa County Jail, was kept without + s I e I quod a 1 S Feuci t 7 frried ryLALIILILAR medication, without food and water, and was tortured; a E 5 T} anta рные trertreter D 39. Despite the conduct of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, the charges against the e a f I B S a g T E A a Plaintiff were dropped; 1 MAARALAR S 40. Plaintiff suffered substantial injuries which are permanent; pa Case 2: 16-cv-01618-JJT-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 6 TrederIITTTTTTTerrrrrre powe 41. Said injuries are a direct and proximal result of the Defendants' conduct; ryt + ' II J 42. Plaintiff was not released from his incarceration until May 27, 2016. IFFC معظم WAS + M K. hood MITTmttttttttttttttritHHHHHHottenttimtrumettittertHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHrtırmtruttritHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CM Wherefore, Plaintiff prays as follows: U Non-IO O * * ALLEELTYTTYYTYTT MAMAMAYTramwerwirreverwirmr a. For his special damages; HA N рші VA hi 1a0a-4 '. c. For such other and further relief as this court may deem appropriate; and (D * * MyH V d. For a Trial to a Jury. + w a Dated this 23rd day of May, 2016. N m * * * e = A e & SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP wa Grib ч C YYY JEFFREY R. FINLEY Hud Hwnt. MHR RRITILLARININKLIAVAILABILLYRIELLT S 4...-L............................................... PHYA O bar LYRITT N NI

ORDER - Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp are dismissed without prejudice. Defendant Arpaio must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Arpaio within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Metcalf pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 7/6/2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 6 1 MH 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS TRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Oscar Hernandez, No. CV 16-01618-PHX-JJT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez, who is represented by counsel, has filed a civil rights 16 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and paid the $400.00 filing and 17 administrative fees. The Court will dismiss Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp without 18 prejudice. Defendant Arpaio will be required to answer the Complaint. 19 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a 23 plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim 24 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 25 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 26 A pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 28 not demand detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-TERMPSREF Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 6 1 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 2 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. 4 "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to'state a 5 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 6 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content 7 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 8 misconduct alleged." Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 9 relief [is]... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its 10 judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific 11 factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess 12 whether there are other "more likely explanations" for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 13 II. Complaint 14 In his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert violations of his Fourteenth 15 Amendment rights. He names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa 16 County Sheriff’s Office employees Larry Kratzer and Sergeant Fieldcamp 1 as 17 Defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money damages. 18 Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on or about December 3, 2013, and charged 19 with involvement in "gang crime" and robbery. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Although the charges 20 against Plaintiff were dropped on or about May 27, 2014, Plaintiff was detained in a 21 Maricopa County Jail from December 3, 2013 to June 2, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 22 over the course of his detention, he was subjected to "various forms of torture." (Id.) 23 The first incident described in the Complaint allegedly took place after Plaintiff 24 was accused of stealing bread. (Id.) He claims that detention officers dragged him to the 25 isolation area and proceeded to kick and punch him while he was handcuffed. (Id. at 3-4.) 26 27 28 1 These Defendants are described as employed by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office "or otherwise working at the direction of Defendant Arpaio." (Doc. 1 at 2.) TERMPSREF-2-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 6 1 At some point during the assault, Plaintiff, who suffers from epilepsy, 2 had a seizure and 2 was transported to the psychiatric ward. (Id. at 4.) When Plaintiff awoke from the seizure, 3 jail personnel attempted to convince him that a deep cut he had suffered during the attack 4 was actually the result of a suicide attempt. (Id.) At that point, Plaintiff was stripped 5 naked and chained to a bed for approximately 18 hours. (Id.) According to the Complaint, 6 jail officials tightened the chains to such a degree that Plaintiff experienced a form of 7 torture similar to that imposed by the "rack." (Id.) When Plaintiff indicated that his sons 8 were citizens and stated, "[Y]ou can’t do this to me, this is America," Defendant 9 Fieldcamp allegedly stated that he "didn’t give a f***" about Plaintiff’s sons and that 10 Plaintiff should "shut up." While Plaintiff was restrained on the bed, he suffered seizures 11 that caused him to urinate and defecate on himself. (Id.) Although Plaintiff had not 12 actually attempted suicide, he "admitted" that he had in order to obtain his epilepsy 13 medication and "stop the beatings and torture." (Id.) According to Plaintiff, all of these 14 actions were taken at the direction of or with the consent of Defendant Arpaio. (Id.) 15 During his detention, Plaintiff was also placed in isolation several times. (Id. at 5.) 16 On one occasion, he was placed in isolation for approximately 10 days, during which 17 time he was forced to remain naked. (Id.) For two and a half days during that period, 18 Plaintiff was denied both food and water, which caused him to drink his own urine. (Id.) 19 At some point during his isolation, Plaintiff allegedly requested medication for his 20 seizures. (Id.) However, he was told by jail personnel that he was a "faker" and that his 21 seizures were not real. (Id.) On a separate occasion, Plaintiff was placed in isolation for 22 30 days "for no apparent reason." (Id.) As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff 23 suffered "substantial" permanent injuries. (Id.) 24.... 25.... 26 2 27 According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2009 and has been treated with Dilantin since that time. The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s 28 website describes Dilantin as an anticonvulsant that is used to treat certain types of seizures. See https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682022.html (last visited June 2, 2016). TERMPSREF-3-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 6 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 3 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 4 and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 5 Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 6 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific 7 injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an 8 affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 9 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 10 A. Defendant Kratzer 11 As noted above, to adequately allege a § 1983 claim against a particular defendant, 12 a plaintiff must affirmatively link his injuries to the conduct of that defendant. Plaintiff’s 13 Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding Defendant Kratzer’s conduct. In 14 fact, other than been identified as an individual employed by the Maricopa County 15 Sheriff’s Office or otherwise working at the direction of Defendant Arpaio, Kratzer is not 16 mentioned in the Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant Kratzer will be dismissed without 17 prejudice. 18 B. Defendant Fieldcamp 19 Plaintiff appears to be alleging a threat-to-safety claim against Defendant 20 Fieldcamp. A claim for a threat to safety arises under the Fourteenth Amendment as to 21 pretrial detainees. To state a threat-to-safety claim, an inmate must allege facts to support 22 that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that 23 officials were "deliberately indifferent" to those risks. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 24 832-33 (1994). To adequately allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege facts 25 to support that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate safety. 26 Id. at 837. That is, "the official must both [have been] aware of facts from which the 27 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he must 28 also [have] draw[n] the inference." Id. TERMPSREF-4-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 5 of 6 1 Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to show that Defendant Fieldcamp 2 disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. The only allegation against Fieldcamp is that 3 he made a statement to Plaintiff "during his torture." Plaintiff does not allege that 4 Fieldcamp participated in the torturous conduct. Nor does he adequately identify when 5 Fieldcamp was present or what conduct he witnessed. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not 6 alleged sufficient facts to show that Fieldcamp was either directly involved in a 7 constitutional violation or that he had a realistic opportunity to intercede in violative 8 conduct. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 2000) (officials can 9 be held liable for failing to intercede in a constitutional violation only when they have a 10 realistic opportunity to do so). Without more, the verbal abuse that Plaintiff describes 11 does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 12 614, 624 (9th Cir. 1997); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). 13 Accordingly, Defendant Fieldcamp will be dismissed without prejudice. 14 IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will Be Required 15 Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim against 16 Defendant Arpaio. Accordingly, Defendant Arpaio will be required to answer the 17 Complaint. 18 IT IS ORDERED: 19 (1) Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp are dismissed without prejudice. 20 (2) Defendant Arpaio must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by 21 appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of 22 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 (3) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or 24 complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Arpaio within 90 days of 25 the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is 26 later, the action may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii). 27.... 28.... TERMPSREF-5-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 6 of 6 1 (4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Metcalf pursuant to 2 Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as 3 authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 Dated this 6th day of July, 2016. 5 6 Honorable John J. Tuchi 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TERMPSREF-6-

ANSWER to {{1}} Complaint with Jury Demand by Joseph M Arpaio.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 7 1 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY 2 By: MAXINE S. MAK 3 State Bar No.: 031158 4 makm@mcao.maricopa.gov J. KENNETH MANGUM 5 State Bar No.: 003077 6 mangumk@mcao.maricopa.gov Deputy County Attorneys 7 8 CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 9 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 10 Telephone No. (602) 506-8541 Facsimile No. (602) 506-8567 11 12 Attorneys for Defendant Arpaio 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 15 16 Oscar Hernandez, NO. CV16-01618-JJT-JFM 17 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 18 v. 19 DEMAND FOR JURY 20 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al. TRIAL PER RULE 38, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Defendant Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio ("Arpaio") answers Plaintiff’s Complaint as 25 follows: 26 1. Allegations of Paragraph 1 do not pertain to Arpaio, and no response is 27 required. 28-1-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 7 1 2. Admit the allegations of Paragraph 2. 2 3. Admit the allegations of Paragraph 3. 3 4. Defendant Fieldcamp has been dismissed; therefore no response to 4 Paragraph 4 is required. 5 5. Defendant Kratzner has been dismissed; therefore no response to Paragraph 6 5 is required. 7 6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 do not pertain to Arpaio, therefore no 8 response is required. 7. Admit jurisdiction is proper. 9 8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are vague and ambiguous. To the extent 10 they are understandable, Arpaio denies the allegations of Paragraph 8. 11 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are vague and ambiguous, but to the extent 12 they are understandable, Arpaio denies the allegations, except to admit that a District 13 Court judge has made certain findings and has drawn certain conclusions which speak for 14 themselves regarding Arpaio’s conduct. Arpaio attempts and has attempted to make 15 every reasonable effort to comply with the laws of the United States and Arizona, and to 16 comply with court directives. 17 10. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are vague and ambiguous. To the extent 18 they are understandable, Arpaio denies the allegations, except to admit that a District 19 Court has appointed a monitor to monitor the actions of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s 20 Department. 21 11. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are vague and ambiguous. To the extent 22 they are understandable, Arpaio denies the allegations. Arpaio attempts and has 23 attempted to make every reasonable effort to comply with the laws of the United States 24 and Arizona and to comply with court directives. 25 12. The allegations of Paragraph 12 do not relate to Arpaio, therefore, no 26 response is required. 27 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 do not relate to Arpaio, therefore, no 28 response is required.-2-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 7 1 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 do not relate to Arpaio, therefore, no 2 response is required. 3 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 do not relate to Arpaio, therefore, no 4 response is required. 5 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 do not relate to Arpaio, therefore, no 6 response is required. 7 17. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 17. 8 18. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 18. 19. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 19. 9 20. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 20. 10 21. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 21. 11 22. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 22. 12 23. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 23. 13 24. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 24. 14 25. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 25. 15 26. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 26. 16 27. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 27. 17 28. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 28. 18 29. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 29. 19 30. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 30. 20 31. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 31. 21 32. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 32. 22 33. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 33. 23 34. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 34. 24 35. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 35. 25 36. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 36. 26 37. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 37. 27 38. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 38. 28-3-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 7 1 39. Admit the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. Deny the remainder of 2 the allegations of Paragraph 39. 3 40. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 40. 4 41. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 41. 5 42. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 42. 6 43. Deny Plaintiff is entitled to the damages in his prayer for relief. 7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 8 Having fully answered the Complaint, Arpaio asserts the following affirmative 9 defenses: 10 11 A. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim 12 upon which relief may be granted. 13 B. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that he is entitled to qualified and/or absolute 14 15 immunity. 16 C. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff’s damages and/or injuries, if any, 17 were caused in whole or in part by comparative/contributory negligence. 18 19 D. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff’s damages and/or injuries, if any, 20 were caused in whole or in part by other parties or non-parties at fault. 21 E. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff cannot establish proximate cause 22 23 of his damages. 24 F. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive 25 damages. 26 27 G. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that there existed no conduct that was 28 motivated by evil motive or intent, nor did any conduct involve reckless or callous-4-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 7 1 indifference to Plaintiff’s rights, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovering punitive 2 damages. 3 H. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that his conduct was at all times reasonable. 4 I. Arpaio affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff is estopped from asserting his 5 6 claims. 7 J. Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, are barred by his failure to file and serve 8 a timely, statutorily complaint and sufficient notice of claim in violation of A.R.S. § 12-9 10 821.01. 11 K. Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, are barred by the statute of limitations. 12 Arpaio asserts that other affirmative defenses may come to light as this case 13 14 progresses. Accordingly, Arpaio affirmatively alleges those affirmative defenses 15 contained in Rules 8(c) and 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as any 16 other affirmative defenses that may become applicable pursuant to discovery, including: 17 18 failure to join a necessary and proper party; insufficiency of service of process; lack of 19 service; assumption of risk; estoppel, laches; fraud; illegality; lack of respondeat 20 superior; spoliation; statute of limitations; waiver; acquiescence; unclean hands; statutory 21 22 and state/federal constitutional defenses to punitive damages; contributory negligence; 23 comparative fault; qualified immunity; absolute immunity; and any other matter which 24 constitutes an avoidance or affirmative defense which further discovery may demonstrate 25 to be applicable. 26 27 WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, Arpaio hereby 28 requests the following relief:-5-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 7 1 1. That this action be dismissed in its entirety, with Plaintiff taking nothing 2 and with Judgment entered in favor of Arpaio; 3 2. That Plaintiff be ordered to pay Arpaio’s costs and attorney’s fees; and 4 3. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 5 6 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 Defendant hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable in accordance 8 with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 10 11 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 22nd day of September, 2016. 12 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY 13 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY 14 BY:/s/Maxine S. Mak 15 MAXINE S. MAK J. KENNETH MANGUM 16 Deputy County Attorneys 17 Attorneys for Defendant Arpaio 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-6-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 7 of 7 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on September 22, 2016, I caused the foregoing document to 3 be electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 4 5 Honorable John J. Tuchi United States District Court 6 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 525 7 401 West Washington Street, SPC 83 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2161 8 9 Honorable James F. Metcalf United States District Court 10 John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse 11 98 West 1st Street Yuma, AZ 85364 12 13 Jeffrey R. Finley, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 14 KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 270 15 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 16 jfinley@schneiderwallace.com Attorney for Plaintiff 17 18/s/G. Naranjo 19 S:\CIVIL\CIV\Matters\CJ\2015\Hernandez v. Arpaio CJ15-0016\Pleadings\ANSWER.docx 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-7-

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Oscar Hernandez.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 1 Jeffrey Finley (SBN 009683) Patrick Van Zanen (SBN 021371) 2 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 3 KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 4 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 5 Telephone: (480) 428-0141 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 6 jfinley@schneiderwallace.com pvanzanen@schneiderwallace.com 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 OSCAR HERNANDEZ, CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM 11 Plaintiff, JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN 12 v. 13 JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pursuant to order of this Court and in accordance with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules 17 of Civil Procedure, the Parties met telephonically on October 21, 2016 and hereby submit 18 their Joint Report regarding said meeting. 19 A. The nature of the case: the factual and legal basis of Plaintiffs' claims and 20 Defendants' defenses. Plaintiff’s Statement: This case involves the abuse of a prisoner that was wrongfully 21 incarcerated in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office jail. Plaintiff was a prisoner in those 22 facilities known as, "Durango", "The Towers", the "4th Street Jail", and "Buckeye Jail." 23 While incarcerated, Mr. Hernandez was mistreated and abused as a result of his ethnicity. 24 Defendant Arpaio is in control of the facility and has operated it in a manner outside of the 25 law, and in dereliction of his duties. Defendant knew that the facility was mistreating 26 prisoners including Plaintiff and took no steps to protect Plaintiff or others. In addition, 27 Plaintiff was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2009. Throughout his incarceration he was without 28 1 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 9 1 medication. During his abuse he suffered increased seizures. When investigated, internal 2 investigators represented that there was video of Plaintiff attempting suicide, and showed 3 him cutting his wrists. This representation was made to the Monitor that was appointed as a 4 result of the Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio matter. The specific claims set forth in Melendres, 5 that Defendant was directing that action be taken against individuals based on race and 6 ethnicity, as opposed to criminality, occurred in the instant case. In fact, the charges for 7 which Plaintiff was incarcerated were eventually dismissed by the State. 8 Defendant’s Defenses: Plaintiff was not acted upon with an intent or purpose to 9 discriminate against him on the basis of race or ethnicity. Arpaio did not act with deliberate 10 indifference to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement or his safety. Any force applied to 11 Plaintiff’s person was reasonable and applied in an effort to maintain security and order. 12 Arpaio did not participate or direct use of force on Plaintiff. Moreover, there was no policy, 13 procedure, or custom that was in place that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, 14 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to Section 1983 15 claims. 16 B. The factual and legal issues genuinely in dispute and whether they can be narrowed by stipulation or motions. 17 The parties dispute certain of the facts as to whether the mistreatment occurred. As to 18 legal issues, it is believed that the parties disagree as to whether Defendants conduct meets 19 the standard for a violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights. It is unlikely that any stipulations will 20 be entered on these issues. 21 C. The jurisdictional basis of the case citing specific statutes. 22 Jurisdiction is proper under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and under 28 23 USC 1331, which provides that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 24 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States". Because this is 25 a Constitutional violation and a violation of 42 USC Section 1983, original jurisdiction rests 26 with this Court. 27 28 2 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 9 D. The parties, if any, that have not been served, or have been served and 1 have not yet appeared and answered. 2 In accordance with this Court’s order, the only defendant in this case is Joseph 3 Arpaio, who has been served. 4 E. Whether there are dispositive or partially dispositive issues to be decided 5 by pretrial motions. 6 Whether Arpaio acted with the intent or purpose to discriminate against Plaintiff. 7 Whether Arpaio was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement. 8 Whether the force applied to Plaintiff was reasonable under the circumstances. 9 Whether there was a policy, procedure, or custom that caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 10 Whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to 11 Section 1983 claims. 12 F. The status of related cases pending before other judges of this court or 13 before other courts. 14 There are no other directly related cases. However, it is believed that the holdings in 15 Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio may be dispositive of certain issues in this case. Likewise, 16 cases involving the following individuals may also shed light on this matter: Charles Agstor, 17 Brian Crenshaw, Deborah Braillard, Jason Farias Mendoza, Felix Torres, Ernest Atencio, 18 Raymond M. Farinas, and Scott Norberg. 19 G. If disclosures are required, a statement of when initial disclosures were 20 made or will be made, or any proposed changes in the requirements for initial disclosures set forth in Rule 26(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21 If disclosures are not required, whether the parties would benefit from the 22 Court ordering compliance with the rules for disclosures set forth in Rule 26(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., despite the applicable exemption. If so, the reasons 23 therefor, and a proposed deadline for initial disclosures to be made. 24 The parties anticipate making their initial disclosures in accordance with this Court’s 25 order. Thus, said initial disclosures shall be exchanged no later than November 1, 2016. 26 H. A statement of all outstanding discovery requests, and the estimated time when response will be made. 27 28 None at this time. 3 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 4 of 9 I. A statement of all expected discovery requests, and a schedule for when 1 they are expected to be made and when responses are expected to be 2 made. 3 Parties expect to engage in written discovery as well as deposition discovery and will 4 commence said discovery immediately and within the dates set forth in this court’s order of 5 September 23, 2016. 6 J. Proposed revised limits on discovery. Any such proposed revisions will explain why the presumptive limits are not appropriate. 7 None. 8 K. Proposed revised deadlines for: 9 The parties propose changes to the dates set forth in the Court’s order of September 10 23, 2016 as follows: 11 12 (1) filing motions to amend pleadings and motions to join additional parties; 13 14 Parties propose that all amendments to the pleadings be allowed until 15 December 15, 2016. The extension is necessary as Plaintiff Hernandez has 16 filed bankruptcy and the trustee will be assuming this claim. 17 (2) disclosure of expert testimony under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Federal 18 Rules of Civil Procedure; 19 Defendant answered the Complaint on September 22, 2016 and just 20 received Plaintiff’s medical records in early November. Initial disclosures 21 were exchanged on November 1, 2016. The parties require time to review 22 23 initial disclosures, medical records, and to make discovery requests. Plaintiff’s 24 expert disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Reports are currently due December 6, 25 2016. The parties propose extending Plaintiff’s deadline to March 6, 2017. 26 Defendant’s expert disclosure and Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Reports currently due by 27 28 December 21, 2016. The parties propose extending the deadline to April 6, 4 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 5 of 9 2017. The parties propose rebuttal experts shall be disclosed by April 20, 1 2 2017. The additional time will allow the parties to complete necessary 3 discovery, retain experts, allow for a defense medical examination prior to 4 disclosure deadlines (3) serving discovery requests; 5 The current deadline to take Plaintiff’s deposition is January 3, 2017. 6 7 The parties propose extending the deadline to February 3, 2017 to allow 8 Defendant to review Plaintiff’s medical records, discovery responses, and jail 9 records prior to the deposition. 10 The current deadline to serve discovery is January 20, 2017. The parties 11 12 propose extending the deadline to serve discovery to February 20, 2017. 13 (3) filing discovery/disclosure motions; 14 The parties propose extending the deadline for filing discovery motions 15 by thirty days from February 21, 2017 to March 23, 2017 to accommodate the 16 proposed new deadline for filing discovery motions. 17 (4) filing dispositive motions; 18 The current dispositive motion deadline is March 21, 2017. The parties 19 propose extending the dispositive motion deadline to June 19, 2017. The 20 parties believe this deadline is appropriate as it accounts for the adjustments in 21 expert disclosures, the fact that Defendant answered the Complaint on 22 September 22, 2017, and counsels’ caseload. 23 (5) filing pretrial motions. 24 The parties propose extending the deadline for filing of pretrial motions 25 from April 20, 2017 to July 19, 2017 to accommodate for the proposed 26 revisions to the presumptive deadlines. 27 L. Estimated length of trial. 28 5 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 6 of 9 1 Six (6) days. 2 M. Whether a jury trial has been requested. 3 Yes. 4 5 N. The prospects for settlement. Does any party wish to have a settlement conference with another Magistrate Judge? How can settlement efforts be 6 assisted? 7 Plaintiff believes that settlement is a possibility, and requests that this matter be sent 8 to a settlement conference with another Magistrate Judge. 9 O. Any unusual, difficult, or complex problems affecting the conduct of the 10 case. 11 None. 12 P. Any other matters which the parties believe will aid in expediting the disposition of this matter efficiently. 13 None at this time. 14 In addition and in conformance with Rule 26(f), the parties state the following: 15 (A) The Parties propose no changes to the timing, form or requirement for 16 disclosures under Rule 26(a). The parties shall make initial disclosures on 17 November 1, 2016. 18 (B) Parties anticipate conducting discovery on Defendants’ compliance with 19 outstanding court orders, the incarceration of Plaintiff and the internal 20 investigation that surrounding complaints by Plaintiff as well as the conduct of 21 the investigation into same by the Court Appointed Monitor. There is no need 22 for phases of discovery and all such discovery may be completed by June 1, 23 2017. 24 (C) The parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree 25 that preservation of potentially relevant ESI will be reasonable and 26 proportionate. To reduce the costs and burdens of preservation and to ensure 27 proper ESI is preserved, the parties agree that: 28 6 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 7 of 9 1 a. Only ESI created or received between December 3, 2013 and June 6, 2 2014 will be preserved; 3 b. The custodians for whom ESI must be maintained are the Maricopa 4 County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph Arpaio; 5 c. The only forms of ESI that must be preserved are e-mails,.pdf files, 6 word processing documents (e.g., documents in Microsoft Word), and 7 spreadsheet documents (e.g., documents in Microsoft Excel); 8 d. The parties’ obligation to preserve ESI shall extend only to such email 9 accounts, computers or computer systems that each custodian utilized 10 for purposes relating to the business of, or transactions with, MCSO. 11 By way of example, if a custodian has a private email account that is not 12 utilized for business purposes, the preservation obligation shall not 13 extend to such email account unless such private email accounts were 14 used to communicate any information relative to the claims set forth in 15 the Complaint; 16 e. The parties agree that existing back-up media of e-mail or other systems 17 are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost pursuant 18 to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and ESI from these sources will be 19 preserved but not searched, reviewed, or produced. 20 i. SEARCH. 21 The parties agree that in responding to an initial Ariz. R. Civ. P. 34 22 request, or earlier if appropriate, they will meet and confer about 23 methods to search ESI in order to identify ESI that is subject to 24 production in discovery and filter out ESI that is not subject to 25 discovery. This will include reaching agreement upon a list of key 26 words to be used to search for potentially responsive e-mails. 27 ii. PRODUCTION FORMATS. 28 The parties agree to produce documents in searchable.pdf file 7 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 8 of 9 1 format. If particular documents warrant a different format (e.g., 2 spreadsheet documents in EXCEL), the parties will cooperate to 3 arrange for the mutually acceptable production of such documents. 4 The parties agree not to degrade the searchability of documents as 5 part of the document production process. The parties agree that 6 metadata associated with ESI will be preserved but need not be 7 produced unless a question such as authenticity is raised with respect 8 to a particular document. 9 (D) DOCUMENTS PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY. 10 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a privileged or work-product-11 protected document, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of privilege 12 or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state 13 proceeding. For example, the mere production of privileged or work-product-14 protected documents in this case as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver 15 in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. 16 a. Any claim of privilege must be asserted at the earlier of: (i) five (5) 17 calendar days after the document is filed with the Court; (ii) five (5) 18 calendar days after the document is marked as an exhibit at a deposition; 19 or (iii) ten (10) business days after the document is identified as a 20 proposed trial exhibit by the opposing party. Notice of the claim of 21 privilege will be provided in writing to the opposing party. The parties 22 will meet and confer within five (5) calendar days to attempt to resolve 23 the claim of privilege. If the parties cannot resolve the issue within 24 fourteen (14) calendar days of any Notice, counsel shall jointly contact 25 chambers within 21 days of the Notice to request a conference to 26 discuss the privilege dispute. No party shall use the document while a 27 Notice is pending and if a conference with the Court is timely requested, 28 until determination of privilege dispute by the Court. During the 8 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 13 Filed 11/21/16 Page 9 of 9 1 pending of any privilege dispute concerning a document filed with the 2 Court, the parties will stipulate to the temporary sealing of the 3 document. To aid the court in resolving any privilege dispute, the Court 4 will be provided the subject document for in camera review. 5 (E) The parties do not request any changes to the limitations on discovery imposed 6 under the rules. 7 (F) No other orders should issue from the Court at this time. 8 9 DATED: November 21, 2016 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 10 KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP 11 By:/s/Jeffrey R. Finley 12 Jeffrey R. Finley Patrick J. Van Zanen 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 DATED: November 21, 2016 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE 15 16 By:/s/Maxine Mak 17 Maxine Mak Attorney for Defendant 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 JOINT REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN; 2:16-CV-01618

ORDER: Discovery due by 2/20/2017. Dispositive motions due by 6/19/2017. In all other respects, the Court's original scheduling Order filed September 23, 2016 (Doc. {{9}}), including extension of deadlines as a result of pending dispositive motions, shall remain in effect. See document for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 11/28/2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 14 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 Oscar Hernandez, 8 Plaintiff CV-16-1618-PHX-JJT (JFM)-vs-9 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Order Defendants. 10 11 In the Scheduling Order, the parties were directed to file a Joint Discovery Plan. 12 On November 21, 2016, the parties responded (Doc. 13). In their Joint Discovery Plan, 13 the parties report that all parties have been served and appeared, and they propose 14 several modifications to the schedule in this matter. and no peculiar difficulties are 15 expected, but note that Plaintiff has filed bankruptcy and the bankruptcy trustee will be 16 assuming the case. The parties request the deadline for amendments be set for December 17 15, 2016, but that is sooner than the existing deadline. That deadline will not be 18 modified. The Court finds good cause for making the following modifications. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED amending the schedule in this case as follows: 20 1. Initial Disclosures: This deadline expired on November 1, 2016. 21 2. Expert Disclosures: 22 a. Plaintiff-Plaintiff shall disclose all expert witnesses and their Rule 23 26(a)(2)(B) Reports by March 6, 2017. 24 b. Defendants-Defendants shall disclose all expert witnesses and their Rule 25 26(a)(2)(B) Reports by April 6, 2017. 26 c. Rebuttal – The parties shall disclose all rebuttal expert witnesses and their 27 Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Reports by April 20, 2017. 28 1 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 14 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 2 1 3. Plaintiff’s Deposition: Defendants may take Plaintiff's deposition, if they choose, 2 no later than February 3, 2017. 3 4. Discovery Requests: All requests for discovery shall be served by February 20, 4 2017. 5 5. Discovery Motions: All motions regarding discovery and disclosure shall be filed 6 by March 23, 2017. 7 6. Motions to Join or Amend: All motions to join parties or to amend pleadings shall 8 be filed by December 21, 2016. 9 7. Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions shall be filed by June 19, 2017. 10 8. Pretrial Motions: All other pretrial motions (which excludes motions related to the 11 conduct of trial, e.g. motions in limine), shall be filed by July 19, 2017. 12 In all other respects, the Court’s original scheduling Order filed September 23, 2016 13 (Doc. 9), including extension of deadlines as a result of pending dispositive motions, 14 shall remain in effect. 15 Dated: November 28, 2016 16 16-1618o Order 16 11 22 re Amend Sched on JDP.docx James F. Metcalf 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

ORDER granting {{16}} Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. Within fourteen days of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: lodge a proposed amended complaint in accordance with that attached to his Motion (Doc. {{16}}) or file a response to this order showing cause why this case should not be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 1/12/17.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 Oscar Hernandez, 8 Plaintiff CV-16-1618-PHX-JJT (JFM)-vs-9 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Order Defendants. 10 11 Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, filed December 21, 2016 12 (Doc. 16). Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to: (1) identify the trustee of his bankruptcy 13 estate as the real party in interest pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a); and 14 (2) clarify his claims against dismissed Defendants Kratzer and Fieldkamp to address the 15 deficiencies found on screening. 16 Defendant Arpaio has not responded, and consequently under Local Civil Rule 17 7.2(i) such failure "may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and 18 the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." The Court deems the failure a consent 19 to the granting of the motion. 20 Nonetheless, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners 21 seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a 22 governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 23 portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that 24 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a 25 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 26 Plaintiff’s first proposed modification is to substitute his bankruptcy estate trustee 27 as the Plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a). That Rule requires 28 that an action be prosecuted in the name of the real part in interest. No procedure is 1 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 3 1 designated under the Rule for involuntary substitution upon the request of a Plaintiff. 2 Plaintiff proffers no evidence that the bankruptcy trustee has consented to be made a 3 party to this action. 4 Plaintiff’s second proposed modification is to expand his allegations against 5 dismissed Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp, and to reinstitute the dismissed claims 6 against them. On screening, the Court dismissed those claims and defendants, finding: 7 As noted above, to adequately allege a § 1983 claim against a particular defendant, a plaintiff must affirmatively link his injuries 8 to the conduct of that defendant. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding Defendant Kratzer’s conduct. In 9 fact, other than been identified as an individual employed by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office or otherwise working at the 10 direction of Defendant Arpaio, Kratzer is not mentioned in the Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant Kratzer will be dismissed 11 without prejudice. *** 12 Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to show that Defendant Fieldcamp disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. 13 The only allegation against Fieldcamp is that he made a statement to Plaintiff "during his torture." Plaintiff does not allege that 14 Fieldcamp participated in the torturous conduct. Nor does he adequately identify when Fieldcamp was present or what conduct he 15 witnessed. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show that Fieldcamp was either directly involved in a constitutional 16 violation or that he had a realistic opportunity to intercede in violative conduct. 17 (Order 7/6/16, Doc. 5 at 4.) 18 In his proposed amendment, Plaintiff now alleges that defendants Fieldcamp and 19 Kratzer actively participated in the alleged events on which his claim is based. (Motion, 20 Doc. 16, Attachment, Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 20, 23-25, 33-35, and 38.) Accordingly, 21 Plaintiff’s proposed amendment adequately states a claim against these defendants. 22 The Court will conditionally grant the motion to amend, and provide Plaintiff to 23 evidence the consent to joinder by the bankruptcy trustee. Upon lodging of an amended 24 complaint consenting to joinder, the Court will issue an order directing filing and service 25 of and an answer to the amended complaint. 26 If Plaintiff is not able to obtain a consent to joinder, it appears that dismissal 27 under Rule 17 may be appropriate. Plaintiff will be directed to, in such event, show 28 2 Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 3 1 cause why the case should not be dismissed. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, filed 3 December 21, 2016 (Doc. 16) is GRANTED to the extent of the relief provided herein. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen days of the filing of this 5 Order, Plaintiff shall either: (1) lodge a proposed amended complaint in accordance with 6 that attached to his Motion (Doc. 16), indicating the bankruptcy trustee’s consent to be 7 substituted in as the real part in interest, e.g. by her signature or that of her counsel; or 8 (2) file a response to this order showing cause why this case should not be dismissed 9 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 for failure to prosecute in the name of the 10 real party in interest. 11 Dated: January 12, 2017 12 16-1618-016o Order 17 01 10 on Motion to Amend.docx James F. Metcalf 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

NOTICE re: Substitution by Joseph M Arpaio.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 18 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 2 1 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY 2 By: MAXINE S. MAK 3 State Bar No.: 031158 4 makm@mcao.maricopa.gov J. KENNETH MANGUM 5 State Bar No.: 003077 6 mangumk@mcao.maricopa.gov Deputy County Attorneys 7 8 CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 9 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 10 Telephone No. (602) 506-8541 Facsimile No. (602) 506-8567 11 12 Attorneys for Defendant Penzone 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 15 16 Oscar Hernandez, NO. CV16-01618-JJT-JFM 17 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION 18 v. 19 20 Paul Penzone, et al. 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Undersigned counsel hereby provides the Court and parties with notice that the 25 newly elected Sheriff Paul Penzone is being substituted for Joseph Arpaio for all further 26 proceedings pursuant to Rule 25(d), Fed.R.Civ.P. 27 All further proceedings will be Sheriff Paul Penzone’s name as the appropriate 28 Defendant instead of Joseph Arpaio.-1-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 18 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 2 1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of January, 2017. 2 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY 3 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY 4 BY:/s/Maxine S. Mak 5 MAXINE S. MAK 6 J. KENNETH MANGUM Deputy County Attorneys 7 Attorneys for Defendant Penzone 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 10 I hereby certify that on January 13, 2017, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 11 transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 12 Honorable John J. Tuchi 13 United States District Court 14 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 525 401 West Washington Street, SPC 83 15 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2161 16 Honorable James F. Metcalf 17 United States District Court 18 c/o Office of Clerk of Court U.S. District Court – District of Arizona 19 401 W. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 20 21 Jeffrey R. Finley, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 22 KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 23 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 24 jfinley@schneiderwallace.com 25 Attorney for Plaintiff 26 27/s/G. Naranjo S:\CIVIL\CIV\Matters\CJ\2015\Hernandez v. Arpaio CJ15-0016\Pleadings\Word\Notice of Substitution 011317.docx 28-2-

ANSWER to {{28}} Amended Complaint with Jury Demand ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PER RULE 38, Fed. R. Civ. P. by Paul Penzone.

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 7 1 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY 2 By: MAXINE S. MAK 3 State Bar No.: 031158 4 makm@mcao.maricopa.gov J. KENNETH MANGUM 5 State Bar No.: 003077 6 mangumk@mcao.maricopa.gov Deputy County Attorneys 7 8 CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 9 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 10 Telephone No. (602) 506-8541 Facsimile No. (602) 506-8567 11 12 Attorneys for Defendant Penzone 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 15 16 Oscar Hernandez, NO. CV16-01618-JJT-JFM 17 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED 18 COMPLAINT v. 19 20 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PER RULE 38, Fed. 21 Defendants. R. Civ. P. 22 23 24 Defendant Sheriff Paul Penzona ("Penzone") answers Plaintiff’s Complaint as 25 follows: 26 1. Allegations of Paragraph 1 do not pertain to Penzone, and no response is 27 required. 28-1-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 7 1 2. Penzone has substituted in as Defendant for Arpaio under Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 25(d). To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 2 were intended to 3 relate to Penzone, admit. Deny the remainder. 4 3. Deny. Affirmatively allege that Penzone is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa 5 County. 6 4. Admit Fieldcamp is an employee of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 7 ("MCSO"), and was an employee of MCSO at all relevant times herein. 8 5. Admit Kratzer is an employee of MCSO and was an employee at all relevant times herein. 9 6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 do not pertain to Penzone, therefore no 10 response is required. 11 7. Admit jurisdiction. 12 8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are vague and ambiguous. To the extent 13 they are understandable, Penzone denies the allegations of Paragraph 8. 14 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are vague and ambiguous, but to the extent 15 they are understandable, Penzone denies the allegations, except to admit that a District 16 Court judge has made certain findings and has drawn certain conclusions which speak for 17 themselves regarding Arpaio’s conduct. Arpaio attempted to make every reasonable 18 effort to comply with the laws of the United States and Arizona, and to comply with court 19 directives. Penzone makes every reasonable effort to comply with the laws of the United 20 States and Arizona, and to comply with court directives. 21 10. The allegations of Paragraph 10 are vague and ambiguous. To the extent 22 they are understandable, Penzone denies the allegations, except to admit that a District 23 Court has appointed a monitor to monitor the actions of MCSO. 24 11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are vague and ambiguous. To the extent 25 they are understandable, Penzone denies the allegations. Arpaio attempted to make every 26 reasonable effort to comply with the laws of the United States and Arizona and to comply 27 with court directives. Penzone makes every reasonable effort to comply with the laws of 28 the United States and Arizona, and to comply with court directives.-2-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 3 of 7 1 12. The allegations of Paragraph 12 do not relate to Penzone, therefore, no 2 response is required. 3 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 do not relate to Penzone, therefore, no 4 response is required. 5 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 do not relate to Penzone, therefore, no 6 response is required. 7 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 do not relate to Penzone, therefore, no 8 response is required. 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 do not relate to Penzone, therefore, no 9 response is required. 10 17. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 17. 11 18. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 18. 12 19. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 19. 13 20. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 20. 14 21. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 21. 15 22. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 22. 16 23. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 23. 17 24. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 24. 18 25. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 25. 19 26. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 26. 20 27. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 27. 21 28. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 28. 22 29. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 29. 23 30. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 30. 24 31. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 31. 25 32. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 32. 26 33. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 33. 27 34. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 34. 28 35. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 35.-3-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 4 of 7 1 36. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 36. 2 37. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 37. 3 38. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 38. 4 39. Admit the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. Deny the remainder of 5 the allegations of Paragraph 39. 6 40. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 40. 7 41. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 41. 8 42. Deny the allegations of Paragraph 42. 43. Deny Plaintiff is entitled to the damages in his prayer for relief. 9 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 11 Having fully answered the Complaint, Penzone asserts the following affirmative 12 defenses: 13 14 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 15 granted. 16 B. Penzone is entitled to qualified and/or absolute immunity. 17 18 C. Plaintiff’s damages and/or injuries, if any, were caused in whole or in part 19 by comparative/contributory negligence. 20 D. Plaintiff’s damages and/or injuries, if any, were caused in whole or in part 21 22 by other parties or non-parties at fault. 23 E. Plaintiff cannot establish proximate cause of his damages. 24 F. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. 25 G. There existed no conduct that was motivated by evil motive or intent, nor 26 27 did any conduct involve reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s rights, thereby 28 precluding Plaintiff from recovering punitive damages.-4-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 5 of 7 1 H. Penzone affirmatively alleges that his conduct was at all times reasonable. 2 I. Penzone affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff is estopped from asserting his 3 claims. 4 J. Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, are barred by his failure to file and serve 5 6 a timely, statutorily complaint and sufficient notice of claim in violation of A.R.S. § 12-7 821.01. 8 K. Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, are barred by the statute of limitations. 9 10 L. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 11 Penzone asserts that other affirmative defenses may come to light as this case 12 progresses. Accordingly, Penzone affirmatively alleges those affirmative defenses 13 14 contained in Rules 8(c) and 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as any 15 other affirmative defenses that may become applicable pursuant to discovery, including: 16 failure to join a necessary and proper party; insufficiency of service of process; lack of 17 18 service; assumption of risk; estoppel, laches; fraud; illegality; lack of respondeat 19 superior; spoliation; statute of limitations; waiver; acquiescence; unclean hands; statutory 20 and state/federal constitutional defenses to punitive damages; contributory negligence; 21 22 comparative fault; qualified immunity; absolute immunity; and any other matter which 23 constitutes an avoidance or affirmative defense which further discovery may demonstrate 24 to be applicable. 25 WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, Penzone hereby 26 27 requests the following relief: 28-5-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 6 of 7 1 1. That this action be dismissed in its entirety, with Plaintiff taking nothing 2 and with Judgment entered in favor of Penzone; 3 2. That Plaintiff be ordered to pay Penzone’s costs and attorney’s fees; and 4 3. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 5 6 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 Defendant hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable in accordance 8 with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of March, 2017. 11 12 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY 13 14 BY:/s/Maxine S. Mak MAXINE S. MAK 15 J. KENNETH MANGUM 16 Deputy County Attorneys Attorneys for Defendant Penzone 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-6-Case 2:16-cv-01618-JJT-JFM Document 30 Filed 03/30/17 Page 7 of 7 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on March 30, 2017, I caused the foregoing document to be 3 electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 4 5 Honorable John J. Tuchi United States District Court 6 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 525 7 401 West Washington Street, SPC 83 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2161 8 9 Honorable James F. Metcalf United States District Court 10 John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse 11 98 West 1st Street Yuma, AZ 85364 12 13 Jeffrey R. Finley, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 14 KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 270 15 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 16 jfinley@schneiderwallace.com Attorney for Plaintiff 17 18/s/G. Naranjo 19 S:\CIVIL\CIV\Matters\CJ\2015\Hernandez v. Arpaio CJ15-0016\Pleadings\ANSWER.docx 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-7-

ORDER granting {{52}} Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, filed August 30, 2017. Discovery due by 10/31/2017. Dispositive motions due by 12/15/2017. See document for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 8/31/17.

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 Oscar Hernandez, 8 Plaintiff CV-16-1618-PHX-JJT (JFM) -vs- 9 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Order Defendants. 10 11 Under consideration is the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, filed 12 August 30, 2017 (Doc. 52). The Parties seek to extend the deadlines for discovery and 13 disclosures, and for dispositive motions, with regard to Defendant Fieldcamp who has 14 only recently been served and appeared. The Court finds good cause to amend the 15 schedule as provided herein, including deadlines the Court has added regarding 16 disclosures pertaining to Defendant Fieldcamp, to differentiate the deadlines for 17 discovery requests and discovery motions, and to expand the final pretrial motions 18 deadline. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend 20 Scheduling Order, filed August 30, 2017 (Doc. 52) is GRANTED. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending the schedule in this case as follows: 22 1. Initial Disclosures: This deadline generally expired on November 1, 2016. 23 However, initial disclosures pertaining to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be served by 24 September 15, 2017. 25 2. Expert Disclosures: 26 a. Plaintiff - This deadline generally expired on March 6, 2017. However, 27 Plaintiff's expert disclosures pertaining to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be 28 served by September 29, 2017. 1 1 b. Defendants - This deadline expired on April 6, 2017. However, Defendants' 2 expert disclosures pertaining to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be served by 3 September 29, 2017. 4 c. Rebuttal – This deadline expired on April 20, 2017. However, the parties 5 rebuttal expert disclosures pertaining to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be served 6 by October 13, 2017. 7 3. Plaintiff's Deposition: This deadline expired on February 3, 2017. 8 4. Discovery Requests: This deadline generally expired on February 20, 2017. 9 However, discovery requests pertaining to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be served by 10 October 31, 2017. 11 5. Discovery Motions: This deadline generally expired on March 23, 2017. However, 12 discovery and disclosure motions related to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be filed by 13 November 30, 2017. 14 6. Motions to Join or Amend: This deadline expired on December 21, 2016. 15 7. Dispositive Motions: This deadline generally expired on June 19, 2017. However, 16 dispositive related to Defendant Fieldcamp shall be filed by December 15, 2017. 17 8. Pretrial Motions: All other pretrial motions (which excludes motions related to the 18 conduct of trial, e.g. motions in limine), shall be filed by January 15, 2018. 19 9. Joint Pretrial Statement and Proposed Order: The deadline for lodging a joint 20 pretrial statement and proposed order is VACATED, to be reset by the assigned trial 21 judge. 22 In all other respects, the Court's original scheduling Order filed September 23, 2016 23 (Doc. 9), as previously amended, including extension of deadlines as a result of pending 24 dispositive motions, shall remain in effect. 25 Dated: August 31, 2017 James F. Metcalf 26 16-1618-052o Order 17 08 31 on Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order.docx United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 2

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 284 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
05/25/2016
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number 0970-13006918 filed by Oscar Hernandez. (documents signed by Jeffrey Finley, but submitted using the log-in and password belonging to attorney Garrett Wotkyns)
1
Civil Cover Sheet)(REK
1 Attachment
2
05/25/2016
SUMMONS Submitted by Oscar Hernandez (documents prepared by attorney Jeffrey Finley, but submitted using the ECF log-in and password belonging to attorney Garrett Wotkyns).
3
05/25/2016
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT:
4
05/26/2016
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 1 Complaint filed by Oscar Hernandez. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 5.5(g) - Documents signed by an attorney shall be filed using that attorney's ECF log-in and password and shall not be filed using a log-in and password belonging to another attorney. Document(s) signed by attorney Jeffrey Finley but submitted using the log-in and password belonging to attorney Garrett Wotkyns. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c) - Documents shall be converted to PDF directly from a word processing program and per Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual must be text searchable. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
5
07/06/2016
ORDER - Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp are dismissed without prejudice. Defendant Arpaio must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Arpaio within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Metcalf pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 7/6/2016.
6
09/01/2016
SUMMONS Submitted by Oscar Hernandez.
7
09/02/2016
Summons Issued as to Joseph M Arpaio. (HLA). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
8
09/22/2016
ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Joseph M Arpaio.
9
09/23/2016
SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/21/2017. Dispositive motions due by 3/21/2017. See PDF for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 9/22/16.
10
10/12/2016
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Oscar Hernandez: Certificate of Service re: Summons in a Civil Action, and Complaint upon Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff on 09/02/2016.
11
11/01/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio.
12
11/01/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Oscar Hernandez.
13
11/21/2016
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Oscar Hernandez.
14
11/28/2016
ORDER: Discovery due by 2/20/2017. Dispositive motions due by 6/19/2017. In all other respects, the Court's original scheduling Order filed September 23, 2016 (Doc. 9), including extension of deadlines as a result of pending dispositive motions, shall remain in effect. See document for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 11/28/2016.
15
12/12/2016
*NOTICE of Service of Discovery re Defendant's First Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Joseph M Arpaio. *Modified to correct event type on 12/12/2016
16
12/21/2016
MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Exhibit First Amended Complaint
2
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
2 Attachments
17
01/12/2017
ORDER granting 16 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. Within fourteen days of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: lodge a proposed amended complaint in accordance with that attached to his Motion (Doc. 16) or file a response to this order showing cause why this case should not be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 1/12/17.
18
01/13/2017
NOTICE re: Substitution by Joseph M Arpaio.
19
01/13/2017
NOTICE of Deposition of Plaintiff: Oscar Hernandez, filed by Joseph M Arpaio.
20
01/26/2017
MOTION for Extension of Time Request for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Court's Order to Show Cause or to Obtain the Consent of the Bankruptcy Trustee by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
1 Attachment
21
01/27/2017
ORDER granting 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. Plaintiff shall have through February 3, 2017 to comply with the Court's Order filed January 12, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 1/27/17.
22
02/03/2017
MOTION for Extension of Time Request for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Court's Order to Show Cause or to Obtain the Consent of the Bankruptcy Trustee by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
1 Attachment
23
02/06/2017
ORDER granting 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. Plaintiff shall have through February 10, 2017 to comply with the Court's Order filed January 12, 2017 (Doc. 17). Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 2/6/17.
24
02/10/2017
MOTION for Extension of Time Request for Additional Time to Obtain the Trustee's Consent to Being Named as the Real Party in Interest and Response to Court's Order to Show Cause by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
25
02/27/2017
NOTICE re: NOTICE OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS TO WESLEY COMMUNITY AND HEALTH CENTER by Paul Penzone.
26
03/06/2017
ORDER denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall have seven days from the filing of this Order to lodge a revised proposed amended complaint in the form proposed with Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 16). Plaintiff shall serve such revised proposed amended complaint on Defendant Arpaio. Defendant Arpaio shall have seven days from the service of such revised proposed amended complaint to object to the form of the proposed amended complaint. See PDF document for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 3/6/17.
27
03/14/2017
NOTICE re: Notice of Lodging of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Exhibit A
1 Attachment
28
03/14/2017
AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint against Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Fieldcamp, Larry Kratzer filed by Oscar Hernandez.
29
03/15/2017
ORDER - IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.2(b)(2) (B), Plaintiff shall have through June 12, 2017 to complete service of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 28), this Order, and the Court's Order filed January 12, 2017 (Doc. 17), on Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp. Said Defendants shall answer such amended complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) (3), Defendant Penzone shall have through March 31, 2017 to respond to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 28). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any answer or responsive pleading shall state the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf it is filed. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 3/15/17.
30
03/30/2017
ANSWER to 28 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PER RULE 38, Fed. R. Civ. P. by Paul Penzone.
31
04/06/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paul Penzone.
32
05/25/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio.
33
06/13/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio.
34
06/19/2017
MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Joseph M Arpaio. Modified on 8/15/2017
35
06/19/2017
*STATEMENT OF FACTS in support re 34 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio.
1
Exhibit Index) *Modified to add document number on 6/19/2017 (LSP
1 Attachment
36
06/21/2017
ORDER that within seven days of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum showing cause why Defendants Kratzer and Fieldcamp should not be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 6/20/17.
37
06/28/2017
*MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Fieldcamp and to Dismiss Defendant Kratzer without prejudice and RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 36 Order to Show Cause, Set Deadlines by Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez.
1
Text of Proposed Order) *Modified to correct event type pursuant to (Doc.
38
) on 6/29/2017 (LSP
2 Attachments
38
06/29/2017
ORDER that the Court's Order to Show Cause filed June 21, 2017 is deemed satisfied. Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause, filed June 28, 2017 (Doc. 37) is CONSTRUED as a motion to extend time to serve Defendant Fieldcamp and to dismiss Defendant Kratzer without prejudice. Defendants shall have fourteen days from the filing of this Order to respond to such motions (Doc. 37). Plaintiff shall have seven days from service of a response in which to reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 6/29/17.
39
06/30/2017
RESPONSE to Motion re: 37 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Fieldcamp and to Dismiss Defendant Kratzer without prejudice DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT FIELDCAMP AND TO DISMISS DEFENDANT KRATZER WITHOUT PREJUDICE filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Fieldcamp.
40
07/24/2017
STIPULATION re: 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Stipulated Motion for Additional Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
41
07/25/2017
ORDER - The reference to the magistrate judge of Plaintiff's Motion to Extend and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is withdrawn. Granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the filing of this Order to complete service on Defendant Fieldcamp. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Kratzer (Doc. 37) is construed as a notice of dismissal of Defendant Kratzer. The Clerk shall terminate Defendant Kratzer as a party to this action. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 7/25/17.
42
07/25/2017
ORDER granting 40 Stipulation: Plaintiff shall have through 7/31/2017 to respond to Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 34). Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 7/25/17.
43
07/27/2017
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Oscar Hernandez: Rule 4 Waiver of Service of Summons. Waiver sent on 07/13/2017 to Sgt. Jon Fieldcamp.
44
07/31/2017
RESPONSE to Motion re: 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Oscar Hernandez.
45
07/31/2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 44 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez.
1
Affidavit Declaration of Oscar Hernandez In Opposition to MSJ
1 Attachment
46
08/08/2017
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Joseph M Arpaio.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
47
08/10/2017
ORDER granting 46 Stipulation: Defendant Penzone shall have through August 22, 2017 to file a reply in support of 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 8/10/17.
48
08/15/2017
*REPLY to Response to Motion re: 34 Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Fieldcamp. *Modified to correct event type on 8/15/2017
49
08/15/2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 48 Reply DEFENDANTS ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Fieldcamp.
1
Exhibit
1 Attachment
50
08/16/2017
*ANSWER to 28 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PER RULE 38, Fed. R. Civ. P. by Unknown Fieldcamp. *Modified to correct filer on 8/16/2017
51
08/17/2017
ORDER - The parties shall have fourteen days from the filing of this Order to file any motions to amend the schedule to accommodate the appearance of Defendant Fieldcamp. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 8/17/2017.
52
08/30/2017
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER by Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Fieldcamp.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
53
09/01/2017
ORDER granting 52 Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, filed August 30, 2017. Discovery due by 10/31/2017. Dispositive motions due by 12/15/2017. See document for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 8/31/17.
54
09/15/2017
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Unknown Fieldcamp.
55
12/13/2017
MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT FIELDCAMPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Unknown Fieldcamp.
56
12/13/2017
*STATEMENT OF FACTS DEFENDANT FIELDCAMPS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF 55 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendant Unknown Fieldcamp.
1
Exhibit) *Modified to add document number on 12/13/2017 (LSP
1 Attachment
57
12/14/2017
ORDER - Plaintiff shall have through January 22, 2018 within which to file a response to Defendant Fieldcamp's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 13, 2017 (Doc. 55), together with a separate Statement of Facts in support of his response, supporting affidavits and other appropriate exhibits. Defendants shall have 15 days following service of the response in which to file a reply. The Motion for Summary Judgment will be deemed ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date set for filing a reply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (See document for complete details). Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 12/13/17.
58
01/19/2018
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED:(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34). (2) Arpaio is reinstated as a defendant. (3) Penzone is terminated as a defendant. (4) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is denied without prejudice. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 1/18/18.
59
01/22/2018
STIPULATION re: 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT FIELDCAMPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Stipulated Motion for Additional Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Oscar Hernandez.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
60
01/23/2018
ORDER granting 59 Stipulation: Plaintiff shall have through January 23, 2018 to respond to Defendant Fieldcamp's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55). Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 01/23/2018.
61
01/23/2018
RESPONSE to Motion re: 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT FIELDCAMPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Fieldcamp's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Oscar Hernandez.
62
01/23/2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 61 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Facts in Support of His Response to Defendant Fieldcamp's Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez.
1
Exhibit 1
2
Exhibit 2
3
Exhibit 3
4
Exhibit 4
4 Attachments
63
01/31/2018
NOTICE of Appearance by Ashlee B Hesman on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio.
64
02/06/2018
*REPLY DEFENDANT FIELDCAMPS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 55 by Defendant Unknown Fieldcamp. *Modified to correct event and document link; attorney noticed on 2/7/2018
65
02/06/2018
*STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 64 DEFENDANT FIELDCAMPS SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS by Defendant Unknown Fieldcamp.
1
Exhibit) *Modified to add document link on 2/7/2018 (SLQ
1 Attachment
66
04/26/2018
NOTICE of Settlement (Joint) by Joseph M Arpaio.
67
05/08/2018
**STRICKEN per Order (Doc. 68) Amendment or Memorandum About the Irregular Settlement Filed re: 66 Notice of Settlement, MOTION for Extension of Time to Find a New Lawyer by Oscar Hernandez. NOTE: Filed by Plaintiff as prose. (7 pages) (EJA) Modified on 5/11/2018
68
05/11/2018
ORDER striking Plaintiff's Amendment to Notice re Settlement (Doc. 67). Within 14 days of the filing of this Order, the parties shall file a joint report to the Court, advising the Court about the status of the purported settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 5/11/18.
69
05/25/2018
STATUS REPORT Joint Report by Oscar Hernandez.
70
05/29/2018
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Within 28 days of the filing of this Order, the parties shall either file a Stipulation to Dismiss or a Response to this Order Showing Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 5/29/18.
71
06/26/2018
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 70 Order to Show Cause by Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez.
72
06/26/2018
*Joinder re: 71 Response to Order to Show Cause by Joseph M Arpaio. *Modified to correct event on 6/27/2018
06/27/2018
Notice of Deficiency (Text Only) (Text entry; no document attached.)
73
06/26/2018
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 71 Response to Order to Show. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
74
06/28/2018
Miscellaneous Relief
75
06/29/2018
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Extend, filed June 26, 2018 71 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 31, 2018 the parties shall either file a stipulation to dismiss or a response to this Order showing cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 6/28/2018.
76
06/29/2018
ORDER: Plaintiff's pro per Motion for Extension of Time, filed June 26, 2018 (Doc. 74) is CONSTRUED as a motion to substitute, and is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 6/29/18.
77
08/30/2018
*STRICKEN pursuant to (Doc. 78) RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 75 Order to Show Cause by Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez. (2 pages) (GMP) Modified on 8/31/2018
78
08/31/2018
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute, filed August 30, 2018 (Doc. 77) is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 8/30/18.
79
08/31/2018
STIPULATION of Dismissal by Joseph M Arpaio.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
80
08/31/2018
STIPULATION of Dismissal (Amended) by Joseph M Arpaio.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
81
09/18/2018
ORDER - The parties' 80 Amended Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice is granted. The Clerk of Court must dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending 55 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 9/18/18.
82
09/18/2018
CLERK'S JUDGMENT - Pursuant to the parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, that this case is dismissed with prejudice. Each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.