Free Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Joseph Ortega, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA Document 154 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 3

LMH

.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay Jeffers, Jr., Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04-0572-PHX-MHM (LOA) ORDER

Plaintiff Jay Jeffers, a Pinal County jail inmate, filed this pro se civil rights action regarding his medical care. The Court recently dismissed the claims against Defendant Lizarraga as time-barred (Doc. #150). The remaining Defendants moved for summary judgment on limitations grounds (Doc. ##109-110). Plaintiff responded (Doc. #120). He also moved for judgment on a mail issue, and Defendants responded and Plaintiff replied (Doc. ##124, 129, 147). The Court will grant the remaining Defendants' motion, deny Plaintiff's motions, and dismiss the action. I. Background Plaintiff's original Complaint was received by the Court on March 22, 2004. He later filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. #45). The remaining claims are Counts I, II and IV against Defendants Tanya Williams (Gant), Joseph Ortega and Rebecca Spurlock. Count III pertained to Defendant Lizarraga and recently was dismissed as time-barred (Doc. #150).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Counts I and II, Plaintiff alleged that in January 2001, while he was incarcerated at the Pinal County Jail, he rejected a food tray that had a long hair in it, and Defendant Ortega would not give him a substitute. Plaintiff is a diabetic and needs food regularly. Plaintiff beat on the door for help and then was placed on lockdown for several days. He was displeased with Defendant Williams' refusal to resolve the matter in his favor (Doc. #45 at 4-5). In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges that in January 2001, Defendant Spurlock refused to give him food despite a nurse's order. He beat on the door and was put on lockdown by Defendant Williams (Id. at 7). II. Limitations The applicable law regarding the two-year limitation period was discussed in the Court's earlier Order (Doc. #150). Defendants contend that Plaintiff's action is time-barred because his claims accrued in January 2001, and his complaint was filed more than two years later in March 2004 (Doc. ##109-110). Plaintiff filed a response that is entitled "Motion to Rejuct [sic] Defendants' Request to Dismiss of Case" and a Memorandum in Support (Doc. ##120-121). In his response, Plaintiff claims that because he does not have access to legal advice or to state or federal rule books, Defendants' motion should be denied. In his support memorandum, Plaintiff develops the facts underlying his claims. He has not, however, explained why his action was filed more than a year too late. Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff's "Motion to Rejuct [sic]" and grant Defendants' partial summary judgment motion. III. Mail Plaintiff also filed a motion for judgment in his favor on "U.S. Mail issues and as well as other issues" (Doc. #124). A Response and Reply were filed (Doc. ##129, 147). In his motion, Plaintiff states that jail staff tampered with his legal mail. These events allegedly occurred in 2005 and thus do not appear to be time-barred. Even so, the allegations are not connected to any of the Defendants who were named in this action. Moreover, as Defendants point out in the their response, to the extent that Plaintiff contends that he has not been able

-2Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA Document 154 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to file documents in this action, the record belies his claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied. IT IS ORDERED: (1) Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #109) is granted. Defendants Williams, Ortega and Spurlock are dismissed from this action. (2) Plaintiff's "Motion to Rejuct [sic] Defendants' Request to Dismiss of Case" (Doc. #120) and "Request for Motion for Judgment in Plaintiff's Favor on the U.S. Mail Issue" (Doc. #124) are denied. (3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 154

-3-

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 3 of 3