Francis 265157 v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 8, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-02071
StatusUnknown

This text of Francis 265157 v. Shinn (Francis 265157 v. Shinn) 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
Francis 265157 v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 James Francis, No. CV 22-02071-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff James Francis, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Eyman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 18 2). Plaintiff did not pay the filing and administrative fees or file an Application to Proceed 19 In Forma Pauperis. The Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and 20 administrative fees or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will 21 dismiss Defendant “Veteran Administration (Tucson)”; order expedited service on 22 Defendants NaphCare and Shinn and order them to answer the Complaint and respond to 23 the Motion on an expedited basis; and order Defendants Centurion, Stewart, and Thomas 24 to answer the Complaint. 25 I. Payment of Filing Fee 26 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 27 $52.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 28 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 1 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 2 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 3 six months preceding the filing of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must 4 submit statements from each institution where he was confined during the six-month 5 period. Id. To assist prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a 6 form application. LRCiv 3.4. 7 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 8 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 9 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 10 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 11 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 12 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 13 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 14 Because Plaintiff has not paid the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or filed an 15 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court will give Plaintiff 30 days from the 16 filing date of this Order to submit a properly executed and certified Application to Proceed 17 In Forma Pauperis, using the form included with this Order, or pay the $402.00 filing and 18 administrative fees. 19 The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) has notified the Court that a 20 certified trust fund account statement showing deposits and average monthly balances is 21 available from the ADC’s Central Office. Accordingly, Plaintiff must obtain the certified 22 copy of his ADC trust fund account statement for the six months immediately preceding the 23 filing of the Complaint from the ADC’s Central Office. 24 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 26 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 28 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 III. Discussion of Complaint 24 In his six-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department of Corrections, 25 Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADC) Director David Shinn, current contracted healthcare 26 provider NaphCare Incorporated (“NaphCare”), former contracted healthcare provider 27 Centurion of Arizona LLC (“Centurion”), Doctor Rodney Stewart, Nurse Practitioner (NP) 28 1 Siji Thomas,1 and “Veteran Administration (Tucson).” Plaintiff asserts claims regarding 2 his medical care. He seeks an emergency preliminary injunction for immediate medical 3 treatment and evaluation for his cancer, monetary relief, and his costs and fees for this case. 4 Plaintiff alleges the following facts applicable to each count: 5 On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff alerted prison staff that he was urinating blood. Staff 6 came to the restroom, saw Plaintiff’s blood in the toilet, and activated an emergency 7 Incident Command System. Plaintiff was taken to Cook Unit’s medical department, where 8 he was evaluated by medical staff. Medical staff told Plaintiff it was “normal to have 9 bleeding from cancer” and that his condition would be closely monitored. 10 Defendant Thomas evaluated Plaintiff and told him that she did not believe his 11 cancer was causing him to urinate blood and that she “felt that it was normal for males to 12 sometime[s] bleed” while urinating due to injury, rather than cancer.

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

Related

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)
Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Limited
605 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1979)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater
184 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. California, 2000)
Buckley v. City of Redding
66 F.3d 188 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Adobe Systems, Inc. v. South Sun Products, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 636 (S.D. California, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Francis 265157 v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-265157-v-shinn-azd-2022.