Anderson v. Cocciardi

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kelvin Damarilamor Anderson, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Cocciardi Officer B0544,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02612-PHX-ROS (CDB)
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 20.) The
Magistrate Judge to whom this case is referred issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in part. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons
that follow, the Court will grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion, and Plaintiff shall have thirty
days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint as to Count One only.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff Kelvin Damarilamor Anderson, Jr., filed a pro se
prisoner civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed on Count One of his Complaint but dismissed Counts Two and
Three because Plaintiff failed to allege Defendant Cocciardi, the only named Defendant,
participated in the alleged events. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff then filed a motion on October 31,
2025, seeking leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. 20.)
On November 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles issued an R&R
recommending that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend Count One to allege two other
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 44 Filed 04/10/26 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
detention officers used excessive force against him, as well as to amend Count Three to
allege Correctional Health Services (“CHS”) denied him adequate medical care. (Doc. 24.)
On November 24, 2025, the Maricopa County Attorney, counsel for Defendant Cocciardi,
filed an objection to the portion of the R&R recommending Plaintiff be granted leave to
amend Count Three. (Doc. 25.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court
must review de novo the portions to which an objection is made. Id. When no objection is
made, the district court need only review de novo a magistrate judge’s conclusions of law.
See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158
F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)).
III. ANALYSIS
The Maricopa County Attorney objects only to the portion of the R&R
recommending Plaintiff be granted leave to amend Count Three because CHS is a non-
jural entity lacking capacity to be sued and is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983.
(Doc. 25 at 5–6.) The R&R did not consider this issue of whether CHS, as a department of
Maricopa County, is a proper defendant.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)(3), the capacity of CHS to be sued is
governed “by the law of the state where the court is located.” Arizona law provides that a
county has the power to “[s]ue and be sued” as a corporate entity. A.R.S. § 11-201(A)(1).
But county departments and administrative subdivisions “that are not separate legal entities
or bodies do not have the capacity to sue or be sued in the absence of specific statutory
authority.” Braillard v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)
(quoting 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations, Counties, Other Political Subdivisions §
787 (2010)). No Arizona statute grants CHS separate corporate existence or authority to
“sue and be sued” in its own name, so CHS is not a proper defendant.
Moreover, unlike municipalities and local governing bodies, CHS is a non-jural
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 44 Filed 04/10/26 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
entity that cannot be sued as a “person” under § 1983. Austin v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s
Off., No. CV-24-02771-PHX-JAT (ESW), 2025 WL 89735, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 14, 2025)
(“Defendant Correctional Health Services is an administrative subdivision of Maricopa
County. It is not a municipal corporation, local governing body, or private corporation,
and, therefore, it is not a ‘person’ amenable to suit under § 1983.”); Hughes v. Arpaio, No.
CV 12–697–PHX–GMS (LOA), 2012 WL 2368615, at *2 (same).
For these reasons, amending Count Three to add CHS as a defendant would be futile
because the claim would be immediately “subject to dismissal” for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Steckman v.
Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, the Court will overrule
this portion of the R&R and deny leave to amend Count Three. See, e.g., Gordon v. City of
Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
As to the portions of the R&R for which no party filed objections, the Magistrate
Judge recommended Plaintiff be granted leave to amend Count One as “he has adequately
stated a claim for relief . . . to allege Detention Officers Fieslman and Evans used excessive
force against him in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights as a pretrial detainee.”
(Doc. 24 at 4.) Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommended leave to amend Count
Two be denied because “Plaintiff does not assert any facts supporting a conclusion that his
hearing [prior to disciplinary segregation] was ‘unfair’ such that his due process rights were
violated.” (Id. at 5.) The Court finds the R&R’s conclusions as to Counts One and Two are
thorough and well-reasoned, without clear error of law or fact. See United States v.
Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court accepts and adopts these portions of the R&R as the opinion of the Court. For the
reasons stated in the R&R, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend Count One and denies
leave to amend Count Two.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted and
adopted in part as the opinion of the Court as described herein.
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 44 Filed 04/10/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 20)
is DENIED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court to accept his lodged
amended complaint, and GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiff shall have thirty
(30) days from the filing date of this Order to file an amended complaint that excludes
Count Two and Count Three and alleges Count One against Defendant Cocciardi and
Detention Officers Fieslman and Evans.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2026.
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02612-ROS-CDB Document 44 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 4