Garza 104949 v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 19, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-05190·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 8 9 Jerry Castro Garza, No. CV 19-05190-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Officer CS516, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Jerry Castro Garza, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Lewis, in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court 18 granted the Application and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend (Doc. 6). 19 Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) after being granted extensions of 20 time to do so. The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 21 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 23 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 25 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 28 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 1 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 2 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 3 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 4 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 6 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 9 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 10 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 11 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 12 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 13 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 14 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 15 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 16 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 17 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 18 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 19 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 20 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 21 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 22 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 23 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 24 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 25 to amend. 26 II. First Amended Complaint 27 In his four-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for denial of 28 constitutionally adequate medical care while he was confined in a Maricopa County Jail. 1 Plaintiff sues the following employees of Maricopa County Correctional Health Services 2 (CHS): Nurses Veronica CS 516, Kathy, Rosie, Stacy, and Grace, and healthcare provider 3 Jane Doe, all of whom worked at the Fourth Avenue Jail. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, 4 compensatory, and punitive relief.1 5 Plaintiff alleges the following facts in Count I of his First Amended Complaint: 6 On July 13, 2019, Nurse Veronica, a medication nurse, gave Plaintiff two pills2 that 7 were supposed to be given to a different prisoner and “forced” Plaintiff to swallow them 8 or face discipline. (Doc. 16 at 5.) Plaintiff took the pills and began to suffer “adverse 9 health complications.” (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff suffered stomach pain and informed the 10 pod officer; Plaintiff was taken to medical. Plaintiff claims that “Nurse Veronica CS516” 11 did not take precautions with respect to medications that she gave him or take reasonable 12 measures to abate the risk that improper medications had been dispensed. 13 In the medical unit, Nurse Kathy saw Plaintiff but “did not take precautions or 14 priorities as to wrong meds,” despite Plaintiff alerting her that he had been given the wrong 15 medications. (Id.) Nurse Kathy disregarded Plaintiff’s “cry for help” and sent him back 16 to his cell. Shortly after returning to his cell, Plaintiff felt dizzy, passed out, “busted [his] 17 eyebrow open,” and regained consciousness in a pool of blood with officers and nurses, 18 who took him back to medical. Nurse Kathy cleaned Plaintiff’s face. Plaintiff told her the 19

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

Garza 104949 v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Garza 104949 v. Unknown Party (Garza 104949 v. Unknown Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Amiable Isabella
19 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1821)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
In Re B. A. Montgomery & Son
17 F.2d 404 (N.D. Ohio, 1927)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson
576 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)