Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 23, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02004
StatusUnknown

This text of Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir (Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir) 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
Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Damian Ayarzagoitia, No. CV-24-02004-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Syed Zubair Tahir, 13 Defendant.

15 On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff Damian Ayarzagoitia, who is confined in the Saguaro 16 Correctional Center, filed a Civil Complaint for Medical Malpractice and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend 18 Complaint and lodged a proposed First Amended Civil Complaint for Medical Malpractice. 19 On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Ruling regarding his Application to 20 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 31, 2024 Order, the Court granted the Motion 21 for Ruling insofar as the Order contained a ruling on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In 22 Forma Pauperis, granted the Application to Proceed, denied the Motion to Amend, and 23 gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint using the court-approved form included 24 with the Order. 25 On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). The 26 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 1 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 2 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 3 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 4 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 5 to amend. 6 II. First Amended Complaint 7 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Syed Zubair Tahir as the sole 8 Defendant. Plaintiff asserts a medical care claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth 9 Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also indicates this Court has jurisdiction 10 over the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343(a)(3), 11 and supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law medical malpractice claim under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1367(a). Plaintiff seeks money damages in the amount of $10,000,000, as well as his 13 attorney’s fees and costs for this case. 14 Plaintiff alleges the following: 15 Plaintiff is an Idaho prisoner. On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff was transported to 16 Banner Baywood Medical Center to undergo two procedures, performed by Defendant 17 Tahir. The first procedure was a colonoscopy, which was performed at 7:00 a.m. Plaintiff 18 was prepped for the second procedure, a stapled hemorrhoidectomy and external 19 hemorrhoidectomy, around noon. Before the surgery, neither Defendant Tahir nor his 20 assistants discussed with Plaintiff “what preventive measures would be used” or “what 21 other options may or may not have been available,” nor did they obtain Plaintiff’s informed 22 consent for the specific procedure and preventive measure used. Defendant Tahir and his 23 assistants did not give Plaintiff an opportunity to decline the surgery, and if Plaintiff had 24 known “what the surgeon intended,” he would have declined the surgery. Plaintiff 25 “recently obtained a description of the procedure and found that the staples should have 26 fallen out and passed out of the body within a few weeks of the surgery,” but as of 27 November 5, 2024, the “staples [were] still inside [Plaintiff’s] colon.” A few months after 28 the surgery, Plaintiff “obtained information that there is a new procedure that is more 1 effective and less painful that could have been done and [he] wonders why this [was not] 2 done.” As his injury, Plaintiff alleges that “the prolapse is occurring again,” the staples are 3 causing him “a lot of pain,” and “whatever the surgeon did has been preventing [Plaintiff] 4 from participating in [his] chosen lifestyle.” 5 III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have subject matter 7 jurisdiction over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. A federal district 8 court, like this one, may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question 9 subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity subject jurisdiction under 10 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 11 A. Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction 12 Plaintiff in part asserts the Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction 13 under 28 U.S.C.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Sanford
429 U.S. 14 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2006)
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)
Elviraida Laracuente v. The Chase Manhattan Bank
891 F.2d 17 (First Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayarzagoitia-v-tahir-azd-2024.