Salcido v. CoreCivic Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00332
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Albert Salcido, Jr., No. CV-20-00332-PHX-DGC (ESW)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 CoreCivic Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Albert Salcido, Jr., who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Tucson, has filed, through counsel, a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc.1), alleging an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against 18 Defendant Collins. On February 21, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and required only Defendant Collins to answer. (Doc. 6 20 at 5). The Court found that “Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that CoreCivic 21 promulgated or endorsed a policy or custom that resulted in the alleged violation of 22 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. He therefore fails to state a claim against CoreCivic, and 23 CoreCivic will thus be dismissed.” (Id. at 4). The Court further found that “Plaintiff has 24 not alleged that Defendant Stolc personally participated in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s 25 constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to act, or formed policies that 26 resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against 27 Stolc, and Stolc will thus be dismissed.” (Id.) As of the date of filing this Order, Plaintiff 28 has not served Defendant Collins. 1 On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Civil Rights Complaint for 2 Damages (Doc. 7). 3 “A district court has discretion to adopt local rules. . . . Those rules have ‘the force 4 of law.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (citation omitted). Hence, both the 5 parties and the Court are bound by the local rules. LRCiv. 83.3(c) (1) (“Anyone appearing 6 before the court is bound by these Local Rules.”); Professional Programs Group v. 7 Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994). A district court’s departure 8 from its local rules is justified only if the effect is “so slight and unimportant that the 9 sensible treatment is to overlook [it].” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 10 Local Rule 15.1(b) provides that: If a party files an amended pleading as a matter of course…, 11 the amending party must file a separate notice of filing the 12 amended pleading. The notice must attach a copy of the amended pleading that indicates in what respect it differs 13 from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or 14 striking through the text that was deleted and underlining the text that was added.... 15 LRCiv 15.1(b) (emphasis added). 16 Here, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) does not indicate in what 17 respect it differs from the Complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has not bracketed or struck through 18 the text to be deleted and has not underlined the text to be added. Plaintiff’s First Amended 19 Complaint (Doc. 7) therefore fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1(b). Plaintiff’s failure to 20 comply with Local Rule 15.1(b) hinders the Court’s ability to compare the First Amended 21 Complaint and original Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s First Amended Civil Rights 22 Complaint for Damages (Doc.7) will be stricken without prejudice.1 Plaintiff may file a 23 proper separate Notice in compliance with LRCiv 15.1(b) which attaches a copy of the 24

25 1 U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1102 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Simpson v. Lear Astronics 26 Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Contrary to the defendants’ assertions, Dominator’s motion for leave to amend its complaint was properly treated as a nondispositive motion.”); 27 Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“Generally, a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is a nondispositive matter that may 28 be ruled on by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). || First Amended Complaint which indicates in what respect it differs from the original 2 || Complaint by bracketing or striking through the text that was deleted and underlining the 3 || text that was added. Incorporation by reference is not permitted. 4 For the reasons set forth herein, 5 IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff's First Amended Civil Rights Complaint for 6 || Damages (Doc. 7) without prejudice. 7 Dated this 11th day of May, 2020. 8

10 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 1 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-