Ligidakis #198493 v. Warren et al

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Joseph Nicholas Ligidakis,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Warren, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00009-PHX-DLR (ESW)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO 	THE 	HONORABLE 	DOUGLAS 	L. 	RAYES, 	SENIOR 	UNITED 	STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE:
This is a pro se civil rights action filed by Arizona inmate Joseph Nicholas
Ligidakis (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	As recounted in the Court’s
September 4, 2025 Screening Order, Plaintiff alleges that following his transfer to the
Rynning Unit in June 2024, Inmate J.M., who is seriously mentally ill (SMI) and had
previously assaulted other inmates, was placed in his cell. 	(Doc. 9 at 3-4.) Plaintiff
further alleges that on September 10, 2024, J.M. hit Plaintiff on the head with a metal
immersion heater, causing serious injury to Plaintiff’s eye, and then pulled one of
Plaintiff’s fingers out of its socket and bit Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) The Court allowed Counts
I, III, and V of the Complaint (Doc. 1) to proceed against Defendants Warren and
Pomerantz. (Doc. 9 at 16.)
On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. 11) requesting leave to file a
Case 2:25-cv-00009-DLR-MTM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
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
First Amended Complaint, which is lodged at Doc. 12. As neither Defendant had filed an
Answer as of the time Plaintiff lodged his First Amended Complaint, the undersigned
construes Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 11) as seeking leave to amend the Complaint as a
matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). 	In accordance with
the continuing obligation to screen civil rights complaints brought by prisoners, the
undersigned has screened the First Amended Complaint. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the
reasons explained below, the Court recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion
(Doc. 11).1
I. DISCUSSION
A. Count II of the First Amended Complaint
In its September 4, 2025 Screening Order, the Court dismissed Count II of the
original Complaint because Plaintiff made “the conclusory allegation that the Unknown
CO, Unknown CO III, and Negron ‘likely’ knew of J.M.’s past assaultive history, and
that J.M. was SMI, was not receiving adequate mental health care, and should be
confined in a mental health unit.” (Doc. 9 at 11.) The Court found that Plaintiff failed to
allege specific facts to support that these Defendants (i) actually knew, or should have
known, any of these facts and (ii) had the authority to transfer J.M. elsewhere or had any
reason to believe that J.M. would assault Plaintiff. (Id.)
Count II of the First Amended Complaint names Defendants Warden Staci Ibarra,
Deputy Warden Romney, unknown COs John/Jane Doe, CO II Smith, and Director Ryan
Thornell. (Doc. 12 at 9.) Plaintiff continues to make only conclusory allegations and does
not allege specific facts showing that any of those Defendants actually knew of a
substantial risk of serious harm posed by J.M. to Plaintiff. 	See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that “a prison official cannot be found liable under the
Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the
official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official
1 As Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 11) details the changes made to the Complaint (Doc.
1), the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 15.1.
Case 2:25-cv-00009-DLR-MTM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 4

- 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
must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”). The undersigned finds
that the First Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies noted in the Court’s
Screening Order (Doc. 9) with respect to Count II. 	It is therefore recommended that the
Court dismiss Count II of the First Amended Complaint.
B. Count IV of the First Amended Complaint
In Count IV of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings a Fourteenth
Amendment 	claim 	for 	negligent 	classification 	and 	due 	process 	violations 	against
Defendants Thornell and Central Classification Committee Members John/Jane Doe.
(Doc. 12 at 15.) The undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and
conclusory. Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts showing what each defendant knew
about J.M.’s dangerousness or what role each played in J.M.’s classification decisions. It
is therefore recommended that the Court dismiss Count IV of the First Amended
Complaint.
C. Counts VI and VII of the First Amended Complaint
The First Amended Complaint includes two new counts, Counts VI and VII, that
were not presented in the original Complaint. These counts allege Eighth Amendment
violations related to unsafe housing conditions and policies. However, the allegations are
vague and conclusory. Plaintiff does not identify which specific conditions violated the
Constitution, which defendants were responsible for those conditions, or what each
defendant 	knew 	or 	did 	regarding 	the 	allegedly 	unconstitutional 	conditions. 	It 	is
recommended that the Court dismiss Counts VI and VII of the First Amended Complaint.
D. State Law Claim in Count V of the First Amended Complaint
Count V of the First Amended Complaint realleges the state law negligence claim
that was presented in the original Complaint to include additional Defendants. 	(Doc. 12
at 17.) 	In the September 4, 2025 Screening Order, the Court exercised supplemental
jurisdiction over Count V only as to Defendant Warren because a federal claim against
Defendant Warren survived screening. (Doc. 9 at 12-13). The Court declined to exercise
Case 2:25-cv-00009-DLR-MTM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
supplemental jurisdiction over Count V as to other defendants where no federal claims
against them survived. (Id.). Because no federal claims against the additional Defendants
named in Count V of the First Amended Complaint survive screening, it is recommended
that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V as to all
Defendants except Defendant Warren. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
II. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT 	IS 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	the 	Court 	deny 	Plaintiff’s 	“Amending 	the
Complaint Request” (Doc. 11).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the original Complaint (Doc. 1)
remain the operative pleading and that the case proceed only on Counts I, III, and V
against Defendants Warren and Pomerantz as previously ordered (Doc. 9).
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 	Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall
have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 	Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days
within which to file a response to the objections. 	Failure to file timely objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the
Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file
timely 	objections 	to 	any 	factual 	determinations 	of 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	may 	be
considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an
order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 	See
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey,
481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-00009-DLR-MTM Document 17 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 4