Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 29, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00189
StatusUnknown

This text of Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated (Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jonathan M. Arther, No. CV 20-00189-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Corizon Health, Inc., et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Jonathan M. Arther, who is not in custody, filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed 17 In District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs. In a February 14, 2020 Order, the 18 Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff 19 had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 20 complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter seeking an extension of time to file his 22 first amended complaint. In a March 27, 2020 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request 23 and gave him thirty days to file his first amended complaint. 24 On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The Court 25 will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 26 I. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints 27 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted 28 in forma pauperis status, the Court shall dismiss the case “if the court determines that . . . 1 (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may 2 be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” 4 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 6 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 7 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 8 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 10 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 12 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 13 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 14 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 15 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 16 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 17 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 18 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 19 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 20 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 21 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se individual] ‘must be held to less stringent 22 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 23 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured 24 by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a 25 complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th 26 Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 27 state a claim, but because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will 28 dismiss it with leave to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants former 3 Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Charles Ryan, Assistant Director of 4 Health Richard Pratt, and Corizon Health, Inc., in their individual and official capacities. 5 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ryan was responsible for providing adequate healthcare to 6 ADC prisoners, Defendant Pratt is responsible for overseeing healthcare for ADC 7 prisoners, and Defendant Corizon was, at the time, contracted to provide medical care for 8 ADC. 9 Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment regarding his medical care. 10 He claims that after he was transferred to the Arizona State Prison Complex- 11 Florence (ASPC-Florence), the medical staff at the prison allowed him “to go 4 or more 12 weeks” without any medical attention following a major eye surgery. Plaintiff asserts that 13 after the transfer, he no longer received off-site visits with physicians or visits in the 14 medical department for six weeks, the pressure in his eye was not monitored by an off-site 15 physician or anyone in the medical department at ASPC-Florence, and he did not receive 16 his daily medication. He alleges that once he was provided with medication, it was “not 17 the same medication” and he began experiencing swelling, discomfort, burning, and a 18 runny eye. He claims that when he expressed his concerns to the medical staff, he was 19 threatened with reprimand if he refused the medication. 20 Plaintiff also contends ASPC-Florence’s medical staff and Defendant Corizon sent 21 him for a second eye surgery in 2018, but Defendant Corizon did not approve any medical 22 follow-up off-site visits after the second surgery and Plaintiff was never taken off-site for 23 a follow-up visit after the second surgery. 24 Plaintiff alleges he is now completely blind in his left eye. In his Request for Relief, 25 he seeks monetary damages, a declaration that the acts and omissions described in the First 26 Amended Complaint violated his constitutional rights, his attorney’s fees, and his costs of 27 suit. 28 . . . . 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 3 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 4 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 5 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 6 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 7 A. Defendants Ryan and Pratt 8 1. Individual Capacity Claims 9 A suit against a defendant in his or her individual capacity seeks to impose personal 10 liability upon the official. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). For a person 11 to be liable in his or her individual capacity, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 12 conclusions, that show that the individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his 13 civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must 14 allege he suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show 15 an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. 16 Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Ex Parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1908)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Eric Sanchez v. Duane R. Vild
891 F.2d 240 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arther-v-corizon-health-incorporated-azd-2020.