Alex Guy Gillis Thrasher v. Unknown VanNorstran, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00050
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Alex Guy Gillis Thrasher, ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 10 v. ) No. CIV 24-050-TUC-CKJ ) 11 Unknown VanNorstran, et al., ) ORDER ) 12 Defendants. ) ) 13 14 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Clarification (Doc. 84) filed by Defendant 15 Jennifer VanNorstran ("VanNorstran") and the Clarification/Request from Plaintiff 16 Regarding Third Amended Complaint's Submission and Contents Thereof and Status Update 17 of Current Affairs (Doc. 85) filed by Alex Guy Gillis Thrasher ("Thrasher"). 18 19 I. Applicable Procedural History 20 On June 20, 2025, this Court issued an Order screening the Second Amended 21 Complaint ("SAC") (Doc. 47) filed by Thrasher. The Court determined, inter alia: 22 1. Thrasher stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on delayed medical treatment 23 against Unknown VanNorstran in Count I. 24 2. Thrasher stated procedural and due process claims based the allegations he was 25 denied his right to determine his own medical care against NaphCare in Claim II. 26 3. Thrasher stated an Eighth Amendment claim regarding the denial of an updated 27 COVID-19 vaccine against NaphCare in Claim III. 28 4. Thrasher stated claims of supervisor liability against the Unknown Supervisor(s) 1 of medical staff for ultrasound and D.V.T. and the Unknown Supervisor(s) of vaccine 2 acquisition in Claim IV. 3 June 20, 2025 (Doc. 47). 4 On October 14, 2025, this Court issued an Order which granted Thrasher leave to 5 submit a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). October 14, 2025, Order (Doc. 77). However, 6 because the time for requesting leave to amend had passed, the leave afforded to Thrasher 7 was for the sole purpose of substituting named persons for Unknown Defendants. (Id. at 3). 8 Thrasher filed his TAC on December 8, 2025 (Doc. 83). VanNorstran has filed a 9 Motion for Clarification in which she requests the Court clarify if an Order screening the 10 TAC will be issued (Doc. 84). Thrasher has filed a Clarification/Request from Plaintiff 11 Regarding Third Amended Complaint's Submission and Contents Thereof and Status Update 12 of Current Affairs (Doc. 85). Thrasher discusses his decision to omit Claim I from his TAC 13 and ongoing alleged medical treatment, and lack thereof, provided to him and other prisoners 14 ("Status Update"). 15 16 II. Motion for Clarification (Doc. 84) and Clarification/Request from Plaintiff Regarding Third Amended Complaint's Submission and Contents Thereof and Status Update of Current 17 Affairs (Doc. 85) 18 The Court has reviewed the TAC. Although the body of the TAC seeks to state claims 19 against NaphCare, NaphCare is not stated as a party in the caption of the document nor is 20 Naphcare listed as a party in the parties section of the TAC. TAC (Doc. 83, p. 2). The 21 Court's prior Order stated: 22 Thrasher is advised that all causes of action alleged in the Second Amended Complaint which are not alleged in any Third Amended Complaint will be waived. 23 Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) ("an amended pleading supersedes the original"); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 24 1987). In other words, Thrasher may choose to duplicate his Second Amended Complaint with the only modification being the naming of identified persons in lieu 25 of Unknown Defendants. 26 October 14, 2025, Order (Doc. 77, p. 3). Thrasher is advised his conclusion "Count 1 as 27 previously described in Second Amended Complaint would proceed in being litigated" with 28 1 claims alleged in the TAC, Status Update (Doc. 85, p. 2) fails to comply with the Court's 2 statement that claims not alleged in the TAC will be waived. In other words, by failing to 3 include Claim I and by failing to name Naphcare as a party, Thrasher has implicitly dismissed 4 the claims against NaphCare. 5 The Court finds it appropriate to afford Thrasher an opportunity to submit a Fourth 6 Amended Complaint ("FAC") to re-state Naphcare as a defendant if he so chooses; the Court 7 will screen any FAC before any responsive pleading/answer is required. If Thrasher fails to 8 submit a Fourth Amended Complaint within the time set forth herein, the Court will accept 9 the TAC and screen it as is. 10 Additionally, in light of the time afforded to Thrasher to submit a FAC, the Court will 11 stay the case management deadlines in this case pending the screening of the TAC or FAC. 12 13 III. Miscellaneous 14 The Court recognizes Thrasher's TAC includes a statement that he has "no way . . . 15 to find parties" and requests the Court's assistance. TAC (Doc. 83, ECF p. 8 of 10). The 16 Court previously stated: 17 Generally, unknown defendants are unfavored. However, if the identity of any defendant is unknown, "the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery 18 to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. 19 Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013), citation omitted. 20 June 20, 2025, Order (Doc. 47, p. 3, n. 1).1 The Court has sought to assist Thrasher in 21 ascertaining parties and service information. See e.g., July 16, 2025, Order (Doc. 51) 22 (granting additional time to allow Thrasher an opportunity to seek information), August 28, 23 2025, Order (Doc. 64) (directing VanNorstran to provide information if known/available). 24 The Court finds it appropriate to inform Thrasher he may choose to serve NaphCare's 25 26 1Thrasher is advised that any unknown defendants will be dismissed if Thrasher is unable 27 to uncover identities. 28 1 || registered agent for service of process (and provide the information to the U.S. Marshal), 2 || whose currently stated name and address is: 3 Corporation Service Company, Inc. 641 South Lawrence Street 4 Montgomery, AL 36104 5 || Alabama Secretary of State, Business Entity Search, https://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/ 6 || corpdetail.mbr/detail?corp=000159132&page=name&file=V &type=ALL&status=ALL& 7 || place=ALL&city=. The Court is not aware of any further actions that would assist Thrasher 8 || in ascertaining the names or service addresses of unknown defendants. 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 10 1. The Motion for Clarification (Doc. 84) is GRANTED to the extent discussed 11 || herein. 12 2. The Clarification/Request from Plaintiff Regarding Third Amended Complaint's 13 | Submission and Contents Thereof and Status Update of Current Affairs (Doc. 85) is 14 | GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. 15 3. Thrasher shall file any Fourth Amended Complaint on or before January 23, 2026. 16 4. The Case Management Deadlines are STAYED pending the screening of either the 17 || FAC or TAC. 18 DATED this 2nd day of January, 2026. 19 Zo vig MO en snnnont 21 Cindy K. Jor§€énso United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 _4-