Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 19, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-08063·Unknown

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, filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On May 25, 2023, the Court granted the Application 18 and dismissed the Complaint because it failed to state a claim with leave to amend. Plaintiff 19 has filed a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 7), a notice (Doc. 8),1 and a motion to release 20 information under the Freedom of Information Act (Doc. 10). Plaintiff has also filed a 21 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court will deny the motions and dismiss the First 22 Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25

26 1 In the notice, Plaintiff states that several attempts have been made on his life by 27 unidentified law enforcement officers and that his health is deteriorating. Plaintiff’s statements are vague and unconnected to any specific person. The Court will take no action 28 on the notice, without prejudice to any motion Plaintiff may wish to file that contains an identifiable request for relief and is supported by specific factual allegations against specific persons. 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 First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 2 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 3 to amend. 4 II. First Amended Complaint 5 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for denial of 6 constitutionally adequate medical care, retaliation, and violation of mail rights. Plaintiff 7 sues the following Wexford Health Sources (“Wexford”) employees who work at the 8 Mohave County Jail: Provider Jane Lekeanjia, Medical Supervisor Mike Burup, and Head 9 Medical Supervisor Krystal Pallerito. Plaintiff also sues the following Mohave County Jail 10 employees: Captain Robert Yollbracht, Lieutenants Sharp and G. Hull, Sergeant 11 Candilaria, and Officers Walker, Riddell, Cabonavitch,2 Anhalt, Ramsey, Engraph, and 12 Leads. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief. 13 Plaintiff designates Count I as a claim for denial of constitutionally adequate 14 medical care. Plaintiff alleges the following: 15 “After” Defendant Cabonavitch commented that men “always lose the most 16 weight,” Plaintiff lost a “massive” amount of weight, dropping from 218 to 171 pounds. 17 (Doc. 9 at 5.) According to Plaintiff, “It[’]s been a constant battle to get anything 18 accomplished in medical” by Defendants Jenkeanjia, Burup, and Pallepito.3 (Id.) Pain in 19 Plaintiff’s kidneys, liver, and stomach make breathing painful. He also has bleeding gums. 20 Plaintiff feels like he has been poisoned or has cancer. He has not been able to get 21 “medical” to perform any tests to determine the cause of his symptoms.4 (Id.) Medical 22 staff have ignored obvious medical concerns, as well as his medical history and records.5

23 2 Plaintiff labels Cabonavitch as a “medical officer.” It is unclear whether 24 Cabonavitch works for Mohave County or Wexford. 25 3 Plaintiff does not allege when and how he sought medical care or describe the responses to his attempts. 26 4 Plaintiff does not allege when, how, or from whom he sought testing. 27 5 Plaintiff does not allege what “obvious” medical concerns he had other than weight 28 loss and pain, what his medical history and records would show, or that jail officials have access to them. 1 Plaintiff has sought but been denied testing for hepatitis C, HIV, cancer, and toxin 2 screenings. Plaintiff has gotten no relief from medical or jail officials, including 3 Defendants Vollbracht and Candilaria, even though Candilaria knew Plaintiff when he was 4 imprisoned 17 years ago and weighed 247 pounds. When Plaintiff was having trouble 5 breathing and told Candilaria that it was like there was “something behind his heart,” she 6 said there was something in the air. (Id.) 7 After leaving the Special Housing Unit (SHU) in January 2022, Plaintiff went to a 8 two-person cell in the General Population housing unit. A second detainee was never 9 placed in the cell with him. Plaintiff’s health deteriorated. Plaintiff has never experienced 10 similar treatment, or lack thereof, in other jails and prisons where he has been held.6 11 Plaintiff designates Count II as a claim of retaliation. He alleges the following: 12 During 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant Leads “exchanged words,” apparently on the 13 top tier, and Leads ordered Plaintiff to lockdown in his cell.

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

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

Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated (Campbell v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
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)
Caron v. Farmington National Bank
82 F.3d 7 (First Circuit, 1996)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael L. Martin v. Sheriff Richard Tyson
845 F.2d 1451 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)