Williams #124345 v. Shinn 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
DaJuan Torrell Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
David Shinn, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-21-02151-PHX-MTL (CDB)
ORDER
This Order addresses the two pending Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) orders
of Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles (Docs. 115, 124). Both apply to two separate motions
by Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Defendant has timely objected to both
R&Rs. (Docs. 121, 127.)
In reviewing an R&R, the Court “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)(1).
“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). The district court applies the
contrary-to-law standard to a magistrate judge’s order denying a motion to amend the
pleadings. Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 459 (D. Ariz. 2012).
The Court will consider each R&R in turn.
. . . .
. . . .
Case 2:21-cv-02151-MTL-MBM Document 129 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 5

- 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
October 16, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 115)
The October 16, 2025 R&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s September
5, 2025 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 103).
Plaintiff’s Objections state that he “assert[s] and stand[s] on all objections and
arguments that I have been repeating over and over throughout this case.” (Doc. 121 at 1.)
Objections to a magistrate judge report and recommendation must be specifically stated in
writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Parkinson v. United States, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1240
(D. Idaho 2001). “Only objections that reference specific portions of the report and
recommendation will trigger de novo review—general or conclusory objections do not
suffice.” Ali v. Grounds, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249 (S.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 772 F. App’x
580 (9th Cir. 2019). It is not the Court’s responsibility to scour this extensive record to
determine the basis of Plaintiff’s objections to the unspecified portions of the R&R. See
Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Wash., 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[J]udges are not like
pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955,
956 (7th Cir. 1991)). As much as Plaintiff attempts to re-assert any objections in the record
that are not made here specifically, those objections are overruled.
Plaintiff’s Objections argue that the Magistrate Judge “misstates the record” as he
“clearly pointed out the correct facts and records in my reply.” (Doc. 121 at 1.) Plaintiff
further argues that he “substituted my [Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)] . . . with a
proposed SAC removing counts 4 and 5 and all other ‘fictitiously named’ Defendants.”
(Id.)
Even so, at this late stage of the case, the Magistrate Judge applied the appropriate
standard of review for evaluating a motion to amend a pleading. Because Plaintiff’s
proposed SAC would, in effect, amend the scheduling order by adding new parties and
claims, his motion is appropriately analyzed under the good cause standard of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b). Acosta v. Austin Elec. Servs. LLC, 325 F.R.D. 325, 328 (D. Ariz. 2018) (“When
a party seeks to amend its pleading after the date specified in the scheduling order has
passed, the party must first satisfy the requirements of Rule 16, and then must demonstrate
Case 2:21-cv-02151-MTL-MBM Document 129 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 5

- 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
amendment is proper under Rule 15.”).
The Magistrate Judge recognized that, while the Court of Appeals gave Plaintiff 120
days “to discover the names of the Doe Defendants named in the First Amended Complaint
and file a notice of substitution identifying those Defendants by their actual names,” with
extensions granted by the District Court, Plaintiff had “a total of seven months and two
weeks to identify the Doe Defendants.” (Doc. 115 at 9.) The Magistrate Judge then
analyzed whether Plaintiff had exercised diligence during the discovery period to identify
“individuals he now seeks to add as defendants in this matter.” (Id.)
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, stated as follows:
Plaintiff has been given sufficient time to conduct discovery
with regard to those claims, and should not be allowed to
further delay these proceedings to investigate other causes of
action and implicate other defendants with regard to the
discrete actions which occurred more than four years ago. Most
importantly, Plaintiff fails to establish that he was diligent in
identifying the Doe Defendants, and identifying and moving to
join additional defendants after the deadlines for doing so have
passed.
(Id. at 11.)
The Court further observes, as it did in a prior order accepting an R&R denying
Plaintiff’s very first motion to file a second amended complaint, that permitting another
amended pleading—necessitating additional discovery—would prejudice Defendants and
obstruct the District Court’s docket-management objective. (See Doc. 104 at 3.)
The Court will accept the R&R and deny Plaintiff’s motion.
December 2, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 124)1
The December 2, 2025 R&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s October
30, 2025 Motion for Leave to File a Substitute Proposed Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 119).
Plaintiff objects to this order on three grounds. He first challenges the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s motion to amend was filed after the deadline for amending
the pleadings. The R&R before the Court involves Plaintiff’s motion filed on October 30,
1 The Magistrate Judge signed this R&R on December 1, 2025, and it was docketed on
December 2, 2025. The Court will refer to it with the docketing date.
Case 2:21-cv-02151-MTL-MBM Document 129 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 5

- 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
2025. So, yes, this motion was filed after the deadline of May 30, 2025. (Doc. 38.) The
Court finds no error.
Plaintiff next objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he did not exercise
diligence in seeking substitution of the “Doe” defendants. The Magistrate Judge found that
“Plaintiff was not diligent in seeking to substitute named individuals for the Doe defendants
after learning their identities.” (Doc. 124 at 8.) The Magistrate Judge presumably accepted
Defendants’ argument that the identity of one of the Doe defendants, White, was “disclosed
on July 21, 2025” but “Plaintiff waited until 43 days later to seek to substitute White for a
Doe Defendant.” (Id.) The Magistrate Judge further concluded that, “[a]llowing Plaintiff
to add defendants and claims at this time would require reopening discovery and prejudice
Defendants, and unduly delay resolution of claims first asserted in December 2021 and
remanded to the Court 18 months ago.” (Id. at 8-9.) The Court agrees with this conclusion,
as Plaintiff has already identified many defendants post-remand and the addition of more
will require reopening discovery and further delay this already delayed case.2 The Court,
for reasons previously stated, finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Plaintiff’s delay lacked diligence, and that Defendants would be prejudiced.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s observation that, “it is not all
evident from Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint(s) that the individuals he seeks to
add as defendants are those actually responsible for the harms alleged in the specific claims
remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” (Id. at 8.) The Court finds no error in
this observation or in the Magistrate Judge using it as a basis for justifying her
recommendation denying leave to amend. As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff’s objections
do not dispute the point that his proposed new defendants may have nothing to do with the
unlawful deductions from his inmate trust account. And, if amendment were permitted with
this being the case, additional time and resources would be needlessly spent on discovery.
Plaintiff, instead, repeats arguments that he is entitled to an amendment as a matter of
2 By way of example, the December 2, 2025 R&R illustrates the Department of Corrections
personnel whom Plaintiff added as defendants after remand. (Doc. 124 at 2-3.) These
include Robert Ellis, C. Amos, and Cheryl Burtsfield, all of whom are alleged to be
associated with the operation of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account.
Case 2:21-cv-02151-MTL-MBM Document 129 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
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
course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). But Plaintiff loses sight of the fact
that the Scheduling Order set a deadline to amend the pleadings and his motion to amend
was filed well beyond that deadline.
The Court will adopt the R&R and deny Plaintiff’s motion.
Conclusion
To the extent Plaintiff objects to any other aspect of the R&Rs, those objections are
denied.
For the reasons stated herein,
IT IS ORDERED accepting the October 16, 2025 Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 115). Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 103) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED accepting the December 2, 2025 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 124). Plaintiff’s Motion Substituting his “Proposed” Second
Amended Complaint [103] Withdrawing Counts 4 and 5 and Removing Defendants
Burtsfield, Osterion, and All Previously “Unnamed DOE” Defendants (Doc. 119) is
DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:21-cv-02151-MTL-MBM Document 129 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 5