Garza 104949 v. Unknown Party

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 19, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05190
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 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

20 1 Because Plaintiff is no longer confined in a Maricopa County Jail, injunctive relief 21 from any of the Defendants is not available. 2 In his Complaint, Plaintiff identified the medication as Tegretol, or 22 carbamazepine, which is used 23 . . . to control certain types of seizures in people with epilepsy. It is also used to treat trigeminal neuralgia (a condition that causes facial nerve pain). 24 Carbamazepine extended-release capsules (Equetro brand only) are also used 25 to treat episodes of mania (frenzied, abnormally excited or irritated mood) or mixed episodes (symptoms of mania and depression that happen at the same 26 time) in patients with bipolar I disorder (manic-depressive disorder; a disease 27 that causes episodes of depression, episodes of mania, and other abnormal moods). 28 See https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682237.html#why (last accessed June 12, 2020). 1 medication that he had taken had caused him to pass out and that he feared for his life. 2 Plaintiff was again sent back to his cell without treatment for being given the wrong 3 medication. 4 About 30 minutes later, Plaintiff started vomiting and suffering from diarrhea, again 5 passed out, and suffered a seizure. Plaintiff was found by an officer and taken back to 6 medical for the third time. Nurses Grace, Rosie, and Stacy saw Plaintiff. Plaintiff states 7 that “I was not [sic] treated deliberately indifferent to my serious medica[l] need.” (Id. at 8 6.) 9 Based on the facts contained in Count I, Plaintiff claims in Count II that Nurse 10 Kathy failed to take reasonable measures to abate the risk of Plaintiff receiving the wrong 11 medication, such as sending him to the hospital to have his stomach pumped, which might 12 have prevented the injuries Plaintiff suffered when he passed out resulting in a facial scar. 13 He claims that the “Defendants involved were indifferent to [his] serious medical needs.” 14 (Id.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garza 104949 v. Unknown Party, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garza-104949-v-unknown-party-azd-2020.