Muhammad v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 76

ORDER, the Court's order to show cause filed 7/1/14 shall be deemed satisfied; pursuant to the parties' Stipulation for Partial Dismissal 71 , Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the Second Amended Complaint 25 are dismissed with prejudice; Defendants Lind, Linderman, Ryan and Krause are dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Relief 37 is denied as moot; Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification 46 is denied as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 7/30/14. (REW)

Download PDF
WO 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 Riki Rashaad Muhammad, Plaintiff 9 10 CV-11-1890-PHX-SMM (JFM) ORDER vs 11 Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 25), raising 15 claims of equal protection, free exercise of religion, and violations of the Religious Land 16 Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and in Count 7 a claim of deliberate 17 indifference to Plaintiff’s safety. The Court’s Screening Order dismissed Counts 1, 5, 18 and 6. It further directed responses from various combinations of Defendants Ryan, 19 Krause, Linderman, and/or (J.) Lind to Counts 2, 3, and 4. A response from Defendant 20 Ams to Count 7 was required. (Order 7/25/13, Doc. 29.) 21 Defendants Ryan, Linderman, Lind, and Ams appeared, and Ryan, Linderman 22 and Lind filed a notice of settlement (Doc. 60). In addition, Defendant Ams has recently 23 filed what the Court has construed to be a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 24 administrative remedies (Doc. 67). 25 In the interim, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Relief (Doc. 37) seeking 26 preliminary relief as to count 3 (religious diet). He has also filed a Motion for Class 27 Certification (Doc. 46), seeking his certification as a class representative as to the claims 28 in Counts 2, 3, and 4. 1 1 Service on Defendant Krause was originally returned unexecuted, an address for 2 service was ordered, and on February 14, 2014, a Waiver of Service was filed, reflecting 3 a waiver of service by Defendant Krause. To date, Defendant Krause has not appeared. 4 On July 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Metcalf observed the incomplete settlement, 5 pending motions for preliminary relief and class certification, and failure to serve 6 Defendant Krause. Deadlines were set for, inter alia, the parties to file a stipulation to 7 dismiss, and Plaintiff to show cause why the pending motions should not be denied as 8 moot, and Defendant Krause dismissed for failure to effect timely service. 9 Stipulation/Motion to Dismiss - On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendants Lind, 10 Linderman, and Ryan filed a Notice of Settlement and Stipulation for Partial Dismissal, 11 advising that the parties had “reached a global settlement agreement of all disputed 12 claims between them,” and requesting “an order dismissing this action in its entirety and 13 as to every defendant except for Defendant Ams.” (Doc. 71.) 14 In an Order filed July 17, 2014, Magistrate Judge Metcalf observed that 15 Defendant Ams had not joined in the stipulation, construed the stipulation as a motion to 16 dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss with prejudice Counts 2, 3, and 4, and not 17 only Defendants Lind, Linderman and Ryan, but also Defendant Krause. The Court set a 18 deadline for a response in opposition or a joinder. On July 18, 2014, Defendant Ams 19 filed her Joinder (Doc. 74) in the Stipulation for Partial Dismissal. 20 With the joinder by Defendant Ams, all appearing parties have joined in a 21 stipulation of dismissal. 22 voluntary dismissal by Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 23 24 25 26 Thus, the Stipulation for Partial Dismissal qualifies for a Because the Stipulation specified that the dismissal should be with prejudice, the dismissal may be with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Therefore, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Defendants Lind, Linderman, Ryan and Krause and Counts 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to the stipulation. 27 Pending Motions - Plaintiff has failed to show cause why his pending motions 28 should not be deemed moot as a result of the claims disposed of in the settlement. The 2 1 time to do so has expired. Accordingly, those motions will be denied as moot. 2 Remaining Claims and Parties - This leaves pending Count 7 of the Second 3 Amended Complaint against Defendant Ams, and Defendant Ams’ Motion for Judgment 4 on the Pleadings/Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 67). 5 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court’s order to show cause filed July 1, 2014 shall be deemed SATISFIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation for Partial 8 Dismissal, filed July 8, 2014 (Doc. 71), that Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the Second Amended 9 Complaint (Doc. 25) are DIMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Lind, Linderman, Ryan and Krause are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Relief, filed September 26, 2013 (Doc. 37) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, filed November 29, 2013 (Doc. 46) is DENIED as moot. DATED this 30th day of July, 2014. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?