Floyd 185235 v. MacKenzie

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 2, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02222
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Eric Joseph Floyd, No. CV-20-02222-PHX-JJT (JFM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown MacKenzie, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18, “R&R”) issued in this matter 16 by United States Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf, recommending that Defendant Faga 17 once again be dismissed from Count 1 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11, 18 “FAC”), and that Claims 2 through 5 of the FAC again be dismissed for failure to 19 adequately state a claim. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the R&R (Doc. 19, “Obj.”), 20 which the Court has thoroughly considered. Upon consideration of the Objection, the Court 21 will overrule it. 22 Regarding the specific objections to dismissal of Claims 2 through 5, Plaintiff 23 provides no legal support for his assertion that he has stated a cognizable claim, instead 24 simply stating in conclusory fashion that “all dismissed defendants must be held 25 accountable for their actions and inactions.” Obj. at 3. This is inadequate reason to sustain 26 an objection; it doesn’t address that the allegations fail to adequately support the elements 27 of the claims. 28 . . . . 1 Regarding his objection to dismissal of Defendant Faga in Claim 1, Plaintiff cites 2 two cases—Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) and Smith v. Stoner, 594 F.Supp. 1091 3 (N.D. Ind. 1984) for the purported proposition that violation of a prison policy is per se 4 deliberate indifference. 5 Morton is wholly inapposite. The case pertains to operation of the Bureau of Indian 6 Affairs and whether enrolled tribal members living beyond the boundaries of a recognized 7 tribal community are entitled to federal government benefits under Department of Interior 8 or other federal programs. 415 U.S. 235. More importantly, Morton does not read as 9 Plaintiff quoted it. 10 Plaintiff explicitly represented to this Court that the United States Supreme Court 11 held as follows:

12 “Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent 13 upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This principle of law has been held to apply to prison as well.” 14

15 Obj at 2 (emphasis added)(quotation marks in original). The actual text of Morton reads: 16 Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent 17 upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This is so even 18 where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required. 19

20 Morton, 415 U.S. 235. The Supreme Court said nothing about prisons or applicability of 21 its ruling to them. Plaintiff fabricated the last sentence of his quote and then offered it to 22 the Court, for the Court to rely upon. 23 Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff quoted the United States District Court for the 24 Northern District of Indiana as holding, in Smith, that “[p]rison rules and policies are 25 equivalent to state civil law once made.” (Obj. at 2.) No such quote appears in the cited 26 order. It is wholly made up. 27 Plaintiff has committed a serious transgression not once but twice. Were Plaintiff 28 an attorney, the Court would refer him to the appropriate bar associations for disciplinary 1 || consideration. Because Plaintiff is not an attorney, the Court will admonish and warn Plaintiff that falsification of information to the Court, whether as to fact or in law, will be 3 || subject to sanction in the future, including dismissal of his remaining claim, for failure to comply with this Order and Fed. R. Civ. P 11(b) at the least. 5 As the above cases do not even say what Plaintiff claimed they did, they do not || support Plaintiff's arguments in objection. The Court will overrule the Objection and adopt 7\| the R&R. 8 IT IS ORDERED overruling Plaintiff's Objection to the R&R (Doc. 19), and 9|| adopting the R&R (Doc. 18) in whole, including its reasoning. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Claim 1 of the FAC as against Defendant |} Faga and dismissing Claims 2 through 5 of the FAC in their entirety. Claim 1 as against 12|| Defendant MacKenzie remains and Defendant MacKenzie has filed an Answer thereto 13 || (Doc. 21). The matter shall proceed accordingly. 14 Dated this 2nd day of June, 2021. CN

16 folee— Unifga StatesDistrict Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-