Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 25, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-08063
StatusUnknown

This text of Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated (Campbell v. Wexford Health Source 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
Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 SC 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jason Allen Campbell, No. CV 23-08063-PCT-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Wexford Health Source Inc., et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Jason Allen Campbell, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 18 with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for denial of constitutionally 5 adequate medical care, violation of mail rights, and retaliation. Plaintiff sues Wexford 6 Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), one of its providers, Jane Lekeanjia, and “Mohave 7 County Detention.” Plaintiff seeks injunctive and compensatory relief. 8 Plaintiff designates Count I as a claim for denial of constitutionally adequate 9 medical care. Plaintiff alleges the following: 10 Plaintiff has been confined in the Mohave County Detention Facility since March 11 4, 2021. During that time, Plaintiff’s health has deteriorated. Plaintiff has repeatedly 12 sought medical care. When Plaintiff arrived at the facility, he weighed 218 pounds. 13 Plaintiff’s weight since has been as low as 171 pounds, and the last time he was weighed, 14 it was 181 pounds. According to Plaintiff, his kidneys, stomach, and heart make it difficult 15 for him to inhale full breaths. Plaintiff has “done everything,” including exhausting the 16 grievance process. Plaintiff contends that something is not right at the facility and 17 Wexford. Plaintiff’s stomach is constantly in pain, as are his kidneys. Plaintiff entered the 18 facility disabled and handicapped with “prior health concerns.” 19 Plaintiff designates Count II as a claim concerning mail. He alleges the following: 20 Since Plaintiff has been in the jail, he has had mail sent to a social security office 21 that did not arrive. After Plaintiff filed a grievance, he was told that the jail was not 22 responsible for mail after it left the jail. In a second grievance, Plaintiff stated that he 23 wanted to talk to social security and the postmaster but his request was denied. Plaintiff 24 thinks the jail and the federal government are in a conspiracy against him. He claims that 25 he knows that certain mail has not made it to the courts and that he is fighting for his life. 26 Plaintiff designates Count III as a claim for retaliation. He alleges the following: 27 Plaintiff claims that the “Sheriff” is retaliating against him out of hatred. When 28 Plaintiff arrived—shortly after a detention officer rushed him while his back was turned at 1 the top of a flight of stairs and sprayed Plaintiff when he tried to defend himself—Plaintiff 2 was locked in maximum custody and his health quickly deteriorated. His health has 3 continued to deteriorate without medical care. 4 III. Failure to State a Claim 5 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 6 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 7 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 8 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 9 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 10 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 11 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

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

Related

Procunier v. Martinez
416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 1974)
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)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
532 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 2001)
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)
Michael L. Martin v. Sheriff Richard Tyson
845 F.2d 1451 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Earnest Ray Walker v. Navarro County Jail
4 F.3d 410 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
John Witherow v. Marvin Paff
52 F.3d 264 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-wexford-health-source-incorporated-azd-2023.