Richard Cortez Bell v. K. Hakeman

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Richard Cortez Bell, No. CV-24-03377-PHX-SHD (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER [12] K. Hakeman, [13] Defendant. [14] 15 Plaintiff Richard Cortez Bell, who is currently confined in the La Palma 16 Correctional Center (LPCC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 19), the Magistrate Judge’s 18 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 28), 19 and Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. 29). For the reasons set forth below, the R&R 20 will be adopted in part and rejected in part, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave will be 21 granted in part and denied in part. 22 I. PERTINENT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on November 27, 2024, asserting deliberate 24 indifference medical claims against four defendants—Nurse Practitioner K. Hakeman, 25 Assistant Deputy Warden Freeland, Registered Nurse Wofford, and CoreCivic Medical 26 Monitor Steve Bender—based on allegations that these defendants improperly deprived 27 him of a knee brace (the “Knee Brace Claim”) and deprived him of the diabetes medication 28 Trulicity (the “Trulicity Claim”). (Doc. 1.) On April 17, 2025, upon screening under 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment 2 medical claim against Hakeman under the Knee Brace Claim theory. (Doc. 7 at 8.) The 3 Court, however, dismissed the remaining defendants, as well as Plaintiff’s Trulicity Claim, 4 without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 6–7.) On July 8, 2025, Hakeman filed 5 her answer addressing only the Knee Brace Claim. (Doc. 12.)1 6 On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint, (Doc. 19), and separately 7 lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 20).2 In his Proposed Amended 8 Complaint, Plaintiff added the three defendants initially dismissed (Freeland, Wofford, and 9 Bender) plus two new defendants: Dr. Ivens, “CoreCivic’s medical supervisor at La Palma 10 C.C.,” (Doc. 20 at 4 (cleaned up)), and Kirk Weddle, a “part of CoreCivic’s medical staff 11 . . . who addresses all inmate complaints concerning medical issues . . . at La Palma C.C.,” 12 (id. at 6). Plaintiff also reasserted his Trulicity Claim. (Id. at 5.) Hakeman opposed the 13 amendment, arguing that it was futile because Plaintiff had failed to cure the deficiencies 14 identified in the Court’s initial screening order. (Doc. 23.)3 Plaintiff replied, focusing 15 primarily on his addition of Dr. Iven in the Proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.)4 [16] 1 No other defendant has been served, and thus no other defendant has appeared in [17] this case to date. 18 2 Plaintiff refers to his proposed amended complaint as a “Second Amended Complaint” because on June 2, 2025, he moved to amend his initial Complaint and lodged [19] a proposed First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 9 and 10.) His first motion to amend was never fully briefed and ultimately was denied as moot due to the filing of the second motion [20] to amend. (Doc. 26.) For simplicity, the Court will refer to the proposed complaint at issue as “the Proposed Amended Complaint.” [21] 3 Hakeman also argued that the amendment to add Dr. Iven was futile because [22] Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that Dr. Iven had any knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical care, among other things. (Doc. 23 at 1–2.) It is unclear why Hakeman challenged a [23] portion of the Proposed Amended Complaint that did not impact her, and the Court will disregard Hakeman’s arguments concerning Dr. Iven. Nonetheless, the Court will [24] independently assess the adequacy of the Proposed Amendment Complaint—including the claims against Dr. Iven—pursuant to its obligation to screen in forma pauperis complaints [25] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 26 4 In his reply, Plaintiff alleged the following: “On information and belief, Dr. Ivens personally participated in denial of Plaintiff’s request for and [sic] outside orthopedic [27] consultation and issuance of a specialty knee brace, despite documented medical justification and approval.” (Doc. 24 at 3 (cleaned up).) That allegation, however, does [28] not appear in the Proposed Amended Complaint and therefore will not be considered by the Court. 1 On October 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 2 (the “R&R”) that rejected the Knee Brace Claim against all proposed defendants except 3 Hakeman, and rejected the Trulicity Claim against all proposed defendants. (Doc. 28 4 (recommending that motion to amend be granted in part and denied in part).) Regarding 5 the Knee Brace Claim, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations against all 6 proposed defendants except Hakeman were too vague and conclusory as to their knowledge 7 of his medical situation to state a constitutional violation. (Id. at 6–11.) Regarding the 8 Trulicity Claim, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations only set forth a mere 9 difference of opinion between medical providers, which is not actionable under the Eighth 10 Amendment. (Id. at 11–12.) 11 Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R. (Doc. 29.) In his Objection, Plaintiff asserted 12 that he sufficiently alleged that the proposed defendants knew about his medical conditions 13 and failed to act, causing him harm, and that he did not need to provide any specific dates 14 because “that is what discovery is for” and “Plaintiff reserves that right to conform the 15 pleadings to the evidence presented at trial.” (Id. at 2–6.) Plaintiff also asserts that he 16 adequately stated his Trulicity claim because the diabetes treatment he received at LPCC 17 contradicted the orders of his prior doctor and caused him harm. (Id. at 8–10.) Hakemen 18 replied to Plaintiff’s Objection, defending the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. 30 at 3–6.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 20 A. Review of Report and Recommendation 21 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Where any 23 party has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the 24 district court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections 25 are filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 26 Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Objections must be specific. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 27 “[G]eneral, non-specific objections” are not sufficient to require the District Court 28 “conduct de novo review of the entire R & R.” Sullivan v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1516005 , at 1 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006). 2 B. Leave to Amend 3 Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 15(a)(2). Leave need not be granted, however, where there exist circumstances “such 5 as . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed . . . and 6 futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Saul v. United 7 States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A district court does not err in denying leave to 8 amend where the amendment would be futile . . . or where the amended complaint would 9 be subject to dismissal.” (citations omitted)). The allegations in a proposed amended 10 complaint must be taken as true in assessing whether the amendment would be futile. See, 11 e.g., Utherverse Gaming LLC v. Epic Gaming, Inc., 2023 WL 4908304 , at *4 (W.D. Wash. 12 2023) (“To analyze whether any amendment would be futile, the Court accepts the 13 assertions of fact as true . . . .”). As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must “construe 14 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 , 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[O]ur 15 obligation remains, where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to 16 construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” 17 (cleaned up)). 18 C. Eighth Amendment Medical Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 An Eighth Amendment medical claim must be predicated on the “deliberate 20 indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) 21 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). “Deliberate indifference is a high 22 legal standard,” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and to demonstrate 23 it a plaintiff must establish two things. First, the plaintiff must prove “a serious medical 24 need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further 25 significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Penner, 439 F.3d at 26 1096 (cleaned up). Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s response 27 was deliberately indifferent by showing: (1) a purposeful act or failure to respond to 28 medical need; and (2) harm caused by the defendant’s indifference. Id. Indifference may 1 be found where a prison official denies, delays, or intentionally interferes with a prisoner’s 2 medical treatment. Id. 3 “[A] prison official cannot be found liable . . . unless the official knows of and 4 disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of 5 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, 6 and [they] must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) 7 (“[A]n official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that [they] should have perceived but 8 did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the 9 infliction of punishment.” (Id. at 838.)). Thus, liability only attaches if a prison official 10 “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Colwell v. 11 Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 ). 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 In his Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single count against six 14 individual proposed defendants. (Doc. 20 at 5.) This count includes both the Knee Brace 15 Claim and the Trulicity Claim. (See id. at 5–6.) The Court will first generally address the 16 sufficiency of the Knee Brace and Trulicity Claims before addressing whether Plaintiff has 17 sufficiently alleged facts implicating each of the proposed defendants with respect to those 18 claims. 19 A. Knee Brace Claim 20 Plaintiff alleges that all proposed defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 21 serious medical needs by cancelling a knee brace ordered by an outside specialist and 22 refusing to reorder it from a company called Hagar based on the “fictitious” claim that the 23 knee brace contained metal in it, leaving him without the brace and causing pain in his 24 knees and ankles. (Doc. 20 at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that he was told that he could not have 25 his knee brace due to metal in it but implies this was pretextual because Plaintiff was 26 allowed his knee brace in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, 27 Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR). (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff also alleges that Hakeman 28 refused to order him an alternative knee brace—such as plastic, fiberglass, or hard plastic— 1 and refused to provide him an x-ray or MRI for his worsening knee pain. (Id.) 2 On screening, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff sufficiently stated his 3 Knee Brace Claim as to Defendant Hakeman, (Doc. 7 at 8), and reached the same 4 conclusion in the R&R, (Doc. 28 at 6 n.7, 7–8). The Court agrees that Plaintiff has alleged 5 that he has a serious medical need, and sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference with 6 respect to the deprivation of his knee brace as to Hakeman.5 And as set forth in Section 7 III(C) below, Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that most of the other proposed 8 defendants knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to his safety by depriving him of the 9 brace. 10 B. The Trulicity Claim 11 In the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims deliberate indifference to his 12 serious medical needs due to the denial of Trulicity for weight loss as part of the treatment 13 for his diabetes. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he was able to lose weight with Trulicity 14 and that it is the “only medication” that has been effective for weight loss. (Id.) Plaintiff 15 further asserts that when he arrived at LPCC “corecivic medical staff” cancelled his 16 Trulicity shot to “save money” and replaced it with an unnamed medication that “is 17 ineffective,” “has caused [him] to continue to gain weight,” and has other “harmful side 18 effects such as loss of sleep, weight gain, [and] pain in knees and ankles” due to the weight 19 gain. (Id.) 20 Liberally construing the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently 21 alleged deliberate indifference with respect to the Trulicity Claim. He has alleged that he 22 has a serious medical need to control his diabetes and weight, and as set forth in Section 23 III(C) below, has sufficiently alleged that most of the proposed defendants knew of and 24 disregarded an excessive risk to his safety and health by depriving him of Trulicity to treat 25 his diabetes and weight. 26 Hakeman cites Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (1989), to argue that the Trulicity [27] 5 The Court need not address the Knee Brace Claim against Defendant Hakeman 28 further because she did not object to the R&R. Cf. Schmidt, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (if no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a review). 1 Claim fails because Plaintiff alleged only a “mere disagreement over the type of medical 2 treatment he receives.” (Doc. 23 at 2; Doc. 30 at 6.) Sanchez, however, does not support 3 Hakeman’s argument. In that case—which was decided on appeal of a summary judgment 4 ruling—the evidence established that a prison doctor had advised the plaintiff that he 5 needed surgery, but that the plaintiff had received an “extensive degree . . . [of] subsequent 6 medical attention,” including seeing “a physician’s assistant, prison doctors, and outside 7 physicians,” and receiving “substantial treatment and medication for his ailments” that 8 “cleared up the symptoms of his ailments, which . . . recur.” Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242 . 9 Here, Plaintiff has alleged that the medication and care he is receiving have not treated his 10 serious medical needs and are making his condition worse, causing weight gain, pain and 11 swelling, and loss of sleep. Accordingly, Hakeman’s argument is unavailing. 12 C. The Proposed Defendants’ Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Medical Needs 13 Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint sets forth allegations against each of the 14 six proposed defendants in turn. (Doc. 20 at 6–16.) The Court will conduct its analysis in 15 the same fashion to determine whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged Eight Amendment 16 claims against the proposed defendants, focusing on their alleged knowledge of and 17 deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs. 18 1. Weddle 19 Plaintiff asserts that on June 17, 2024, he wrote to Weddle, a member of CoreCivic’s 20 medical staff who addresses inmate complaints regarding medical issues, informing him 21 that his serious medical needs—including “diabetes, obesity, bad knees, and rapid weight 22 gain”—were not being treated appropriately and instead were worsening. (Id. at 6–7.) He 23 alleges that Weddle reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records when researching Plaintiff’s 24 complaint but did nothing to address his concerns. (Id.) Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as 25 true and liberally construing the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently 26 alleged deliberate indifference by Weddle because Weddle allegedly knew about Plaintiff’s 27 serious medical needs and the inappropriate treatment he received and declined to order 28 proper treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s proposed addition of Weddle as a defendant is 1 not futile and he will be granted leave to amend to add Weddle as to both of his deliberate 2 indifference claims. 3 2. Hakeman 4 The Magistrate Judge determined, without objection by Hakeman, that Plaintiff 5 stated an Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim against her based on his Knee 6 Brace claim. (Doc. 28 at 7–8.) The Court now finds that Plaintiff has also asserted 7 sufficient facts regarding Hakeman’s deliberate indifference regarding his diabetes 8 medication to state his Trulicity Claim against her. Specifically, he alleges that prior to 9 and during the summer of 2024 while he was at LPCC, he “wrote to Defendant K. Hakeman 10 concerning his medical issues through the inmate internal mailing system” explaining “the 11 seriousness and worsening of [his] medical conditions in great detail” and also explained 12 in detail that his Trulicity injection had helped him but “since being stripped of his . . . 13 Trulicity shot . . . he was rapidly gaining weight and . . . the rapid weight gain causes his 14 knees and ankles to swell to the point Plaintiff can barely ambulate around.” (Doc. 20 at 15 7–8.) He further alleges that notwithstanding her knowledge of his worsening condition, 16 Hakeman “chose to ignore Plaintiff’s crys [sic] for help” and “knowingly failed to respond 17 to Plaintiff’s medical needs.” (Id. at 8, 9.) These allegations, liberally construed, state a 18 claim for deliberate indifference against Hakeman concerning the Trulicity Claim and she 19 will be ordered to respond to that claim. 20 3. Wofford 21 Plaintiff asserts that through the grievance system and inmate letters, he repeatedly 22 and extensively made Wofford, a registered nurse at LPCC, aware of his ongoing issues 23 with medication and his knee brace, as well as the deterioration of his condition, but that 24 Wofford knowingly failed to act. (Id. at 10-11.) Specifically, he alleges that he “made 25 clear the worsening of his medical condition to Defendant Wofford, as compared to his 26 condition when he was being given the Trulicity shot, and using the special Hangar knee 27 brace” and did so in the “late summer and early winter months of 2024.” (Id. at 10.) He 28 also alleges that he “repeatedly complained to Wofford about the lack of medical treatment, 1 medications, and equipment, and to no avail Wofford would not correct the issues made 2 known to him by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 10–11.) Construing the Proposed Amended Complaint 3 liberally, Plaintiff has stated a claim against Wofford and leave will be granted to add 4 Wofford as a defendant as to both the Knee Brace Claim and the Trulicity Claim. 5 4. Bender 6 Plaintiff alleges that in July 2024, he sent CoreCivic Medical Monitor Bender an 7 inmate letter making him aware of “ongoing medical issues and complications,” and 8 worsening condition, but despite knowing of these issues Bender failed to address them or 9 take any action to investigate or resolve them, and instead “ignored those risks, complaints 10 and red flags.” (Id. at 11–13.) Plaintiff alleges that he also informed Bender that he was 11 unable to sleep at night due to chronic pain. (Id. at 12.) Again, construing Plaintiff’s 12 allegations liberally, his allegations against Bender are not futile and leave will be granted 13 to add Bender as a defendant as to both the Knee Brace Claim and the Trulicity Claim. 14 5. Freeland 15 Plaintiff alleges that in September 2024, he informed Freeland, an assistant deputy 16 warden at LPCC, through the grievance systems about his “entire medical episode” at La 17 Palma, including “how his condition and complaints reached a point of deterioration,” but 18 Freeland intentionally declined to act. (Id. at 13–15.) Plaintiff further alleges that Freeland 19 was responsible for ensuring adequate medical care. (Id.) As with the other proposed 20 defendants, and again construing the Proposed Amended Complaint liberally, Plaintiff has 21 stated a claim for deliberate indifference against Freeland based on his alleged knowledge 22 of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and refusal to address them. At this early stage of the 23 case—without the benefit of any discovery or presentation of evidence by the parties—the 24 Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s allegations against Freeland are futile as a matter of 25 law, and leave will be granted to add Freeland as a defendant. 26 6. Ivens 27 Plaintiff does not allege that Ivens actually knew of Plaintiff’s alleged serious 28 medical needs or inadequate medical treatment. Rather, Plaintiff alleges only that “[a]ll 1 inmate complaints concerning medical [go] through Defendant Ivan’s [sic] hands” since 2 he is CoreCivic’s medical supervisor, and that “it’s his job to know of such matters.” (Id. 3 at 15.) Plaintiff’s allegations against Ivens, sued in his individual capacity, fail to state a 4 claim because they do suggest that Ivens had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious 5 medical needs, let alone that Ivens acted with deliberate indifference to those needs. 6 Furthermore, simply because a defendant is a supervisor in the medical department 7 and “has access” to Plaintiff’s medical records does not render them liable under the Eighth 8 Amendment. See, e.g., Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (there is 9 no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position as the 10 supervisor of persons who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not 11 impose liability).6 Because Plaintiff’s amendment is futile as to his claims against Ivens, 12 he will be denied leave to amend to add Ivens. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objections will be sustained in part and overruled in part, 14 the R&R will be adopted in part and rejected in part, and the Motion for Leave to Amend 15 will be granted in part and denied in part. 16 IT IS ORDERED: 17 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion 18 to Amend (Doc. 19). 19 (2) The Magistrate Judge’ s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) is adopted 20 in part and rejected in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 19) is granted in part 21 and denied in part as set forth in this Order. 22 (3) The Clerk of the Court must file the Amended Complaint (currently lodged 23 at Doc. 20). 24 (4) Defendant Hakeman must respond to the Trulicity Claim no later than 25 fourteen days from the date of this Order. [26] 27 6 Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied medical treatment by CoreCivic due to a policy of saving money and due to a security policy preventing him from getting a metal 28 brace, but Plaintiff has not named CoreCivic as a defendant in this case. (See Doc. 20 at 5.) 1 (5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including this Order, 2 the Amended Complaint, and a copy of the Marshal’s Process Receipt & Return form 3 (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of Service of Summons form for 4 Defendants Weddle, Wofford, Bender, and Freeland.. 5 (6) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court 6 within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide 7 service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. 8 (7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or 9 complete service of the Summons and Amended Complaint on Defendants within 90 days 10 of the filing of the Amended Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, 11 whichever is later, the action may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 12 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii). 13 (8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Amended 14 Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use. 15 (9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants of the commencement of 16 this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this 18 Order. 19 (10) If Defendants agree to waive service of the Summons and Amended 20 Complaint, Defendants must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, 21 not the Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of the notice and request for waiver of service 22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being charged the cost of 23 personal service.) 24 (11) The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the 25 summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or is not returned 26 by Defendants within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, 27 the Marshal must: [28] 1 (a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, and 2 this Order upon Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure; and 4 (b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of 5 service for Defendants, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a 6 waiver of service of the summons and of the costs subsequently 7 incurred in effecting service upon Defendants. The costs of service 8 must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and 9 must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying 10 additional copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, or this Order 11 and for preparing new process receipt and return forms (USM-285), 12 if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served 13 Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 15 (12) Defendants Weddle, Wofford, Bender, and Freeland must answer the 16 | Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided 17 | by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 Dated this 11th day of December, 2025. [19] 20 / 21 / [22] H le Sharad H. Desai 24 United States District Judge