Drew 048508 v. Paul

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 24, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-01488
StatusUnknown

This text of Drew 048508 v. Paul (Drew 048508 v. Paul) 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
Drew 048508 v. Paul, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tommy D. Drew, No. CV 21-01488-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Theodora Paul, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff Tommy D. Drew, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On September 13, 18 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Supersedure of Original Complaint” (Doc. 6) and a 19 proposed Amended Complaint. The Court will construe the “Motion for Supersedure” as 20 a Motion to Amend, grant the Motion, order the Clerk of Court to file the First Amended 21 Complaint, and will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $98.75. The remainder 26 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 27 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 2 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 7 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 8 to amend. 9 III. First Amended Complaint 10 Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his one-count First Amended 11 Complaint: Site Medical Director Theodora Paul; Medical Provider Renae Furar; Director 12 of Nursing Donna Mendoza; Medical Providers Nicole Johnson, Lillian Davod, Xiao-ke 13 Gao, and Michelle Jennings; and Nurses Jessica Gonzalez, Nivia Campa, Michelle 14 Bryniak, Marcella Aumack, Melissa Michel, Angela White, Christina Robles, Oyuki 15 Coronado, Sarah Ziegler, and Anita Benavidez. Plaintiff seeks money damages and 16 declaratory and injunctive relief. 17 Plaintiff alleges he has been denied adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth 18 Amendment. In 2016, Plaintiff began regularly experiencing severe headaches that 19 sometimes caused him to vomit. Plaintiff sought treatment for the headaches but “received 20 nothing to alleviate the pain” and, as a result, “began self-medicating with heroin for the 21 first time in his life.” (Amend. Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff continued to seek treatment 22 throughout 2017, 2018, and 2019 “without success.” (Id.) On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff 23 was suffering “excruciating pain from a headache” and saw non-party Nurse Qhiao in the 24 nurse’s line. Qhiao “made a phone call but did not treat [Plaintiff] for his headaches.” (Id. 25 at 4.) On February 20, 2020, Defendant Furar examined Plaintiff and ordered a CT scan, 26 but “refused to treat [Plaintiff] for the headache he was experiencing, outside of continuing 27 prescribed medication.” (Id.) 28 Plaintiff submitted a Health Needs Request on April 2, 2020 and Furar “again 1 refused to provide the proper treatment” for Plaintiff’s pain. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff asserts 2 Furar was deliberately indifferent. 3 On May 4, 2020, Furar reviewed “the ineffective medication prescribed for 4 Plaintiff’s headaches” and “again ignored [Plaintiff’s] complaints of severe headaches he 5 was having.” (Id.) On May 5, 2020, Defendant Gonzalez examined Plaintiff “and provided 6 no treatment.” On May 12, 2020, Defendant Gonzalez again examined Plaintiff “and again 7 remained deliberately indifferent to his suffering.” (Id.) 8 On June 23, 2020, Defendant Campa saw Plaintiff and “acted deliberately 9 indifferent.” (Id. at 5.) On June 29, 2020, Defendant Furar examined Plaintiff and “acted 10 with deliberate indifference.” (Id.) On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff underwent a CT scan, which 11 showed a “small arachnoid cyst in the left middle cranial fossa with non-attenuation in the 12 right sphenoid bone measuring 17x10 mm.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges this type of cyst can 13 cause headaches and neurological damage.

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Dieter
429 U.S. 6 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Gerard Peter Mocciola
891 F.2d 13 (First Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. Patrick
693 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Drew 048508 v. Paul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-048508-v-paul-azd-2021.