Gwen 332970 v. Cattolico

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 2, 2024·No. 3:24-cv-08023·Unknown

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Gerald Vaughn Gwen, No. CV-24-08023-PCT-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Leon Cattolico, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen, who is confined in CoreCivic’s Red Rock 16 Correctional Center, is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a May 17, 2024 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint 18 because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended 19 complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 20 On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 9). On June 21 17, 2024, he filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The Court will deny as moot 22 the Motion for Reconsideration1 and will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave 23 to amend. 24 . . . . 25 . . . . 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, which seeks reconsideration of the 28 dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, is moot because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint superseded the original Complaint in its entirety. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a 5 claim, with leave to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 6 II. First Amended Complaint 7 In his one-count First Amended Complaint,2 Plaintiff names as Defendants Dr. Leon 8 Cattolico and Health Services Administrator Becky Payne. Plaintiff raises a claim under 9 the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments regarding his medical care and seeks declaratory 10 relief and monetary damages. 11 On November 12, 2020, while confined in the Yavapai County Detention Center, 12 Plaintiff allegedly submitted a health needs request informing medical providers he was 13 experiencing “flu symptoms.” (Doc. 10 at 5.)3 Plaintiff contends Defendant Cattolico 14 assigned a nurse to “evaluate [Plaintiff’s] virus symptoms” and designated “the incident” 15 as “high priority” and “an infectious disease.” (Id.) 16 The following day, Plaintiff complained to a nurse that he was not receiving “timely 17 or adequate medical care to address his serious flu symptoms.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, 18 medical records reflect that Defendant Cattolico “was informed.” (Id.) Plaintiff made a 19 similar complaint on November 16, 2020. (Id. at 6.) 20 On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff complained to nurses that he was not receiving 21 adequate medical care regarding his flu symptoms, had not been seen by a doctor, was 22 feeling worse, was nauseated, and was unable to eat. (Id.) Plaintiff made a similar 23 complaint to a detention officer the following day. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, “records 24 indicate” Defendant Cattolico was informed the same day. (Id.) 25

26 2 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint contains minor misspellings and misplaced or omitted apostrophes and commas. The Court, when quoting the First Amended 27 Complaint, has corrected these without specifically noting them. 28 3 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 1 Plaintiff asserts that on November 19, 2020, Defendant Cattolico authorized the 2 lockdown/quarantine of the unit where Plaintiff was housed. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff claims he 3 was not tested to determine if he was infected with the coronavirus, despite Defendants’ 4 knowledge that at least seven inmates had tested positive in November and despite 5 Defendant Cattolico authorizing emergency medical treatment for an inmate in the same 6 unit as Plaintiff. (Id.) 7 Plaintiff alleges he complained to a nurse on November 20, 2020, that he was being 8 given medications that were unrelated to his flu symptoms and “not known to treat [the] 9 coronavirus,” his grievances about “treatment choices” had gone unanswered, and he had 10 to force himself to eat. (Id. at 6.) He claims this information was provided to Defendant 11 Payne. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts that on November 20, a nurse informed Defendant Payne 12 of Plaintiff’s flu symptoms. (Id. at 7.) 13 On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff saw Defendant Cattolico. (Id. at 8.) Defendant 14 Cattolico allegedly reviewed Plaintiff’s “various medical symptoms,” including nausea, 15 headaches, shortness of breath, dry mouth, appetite loss, an inability to eat, weight loss, 16 neck pain, shoulder pain, and numbness in his arms and legs.

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

Gwen 332970 v. Cattolico, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Gwen 332970 v. Cattolico (Gwen 332970 v. Cattolico) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Moore v. United States
429 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)