Gwen 332970 v. Cattolico

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 17, 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 Self-represented Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen, who is confined in CoreCivic’s 16 Red Rock Correctional Center, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). The Court will 18 grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $27.88. The remainder 23 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. 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 Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because 5 it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Dr. Leon Cattolico and 8 Health Services Administrator Becky Payne. Plaintiff raises a claim under the Eighth and 9 Fourteenth Amendments regarding his medical care and seeks declaratory relief and 10 monetary damages. 11 Plaintiff alleges that on November 12, 2020, while confined in the Yavapai County 12 Detention Center, he submitted a health needs request informing medical providers he was 13 experiencing “flu symptoms.” He contends Defendant Cattolico assigned a nurse to 14 “evaluate [Plaintiff’s] virus symptoms” and designated “the incident” as “high priority” 15 and “an infectious disease.” 16 Plaintiff asserts he complained to a nurse on November 13, 2020, that he was 17 concerned he was not receiving “timely or adequate medical care to address his serious flu 18 symptoms.” According to Plaintiff, medical records indicate Defendant Cattolico “was 19 informed.” 20 Plaintiff claims he complained to a nurse on November 16, 2020, that he was “not 21 rec[ei]ving adequate medical care regarding his flu symptoms.” He alleges he informed 22 nurses on November 18 that he was concerned he was not receiving adequate medical care, 23 had not been seen by a doctor, was feeling worse, was nauseated, and was unable to eat. 24 Plaintiff alleges he complained to a detention officer on November 19 that he had not been 25 seen by a doctor, was nauseated, and had been unable to eat. He contends “records 26 indicate” Defendant Cattolico was informed the same day. 27 Plaintiff asserts that on November 19, 2020, Defendant Cattolico authorized the 28 lockdown of the unit where Plaintiff was housed. He claims he was not tested to determine 1 if he was infected with the coronavirus, despite Defendants’ knowledge that at least seven 2 inmates had tested positive in November and despite Defendant Cattolico authorizing 3 emergency medical treatment for an inmate in the same unit as Plaintiff. 4 Plaintiff alleges he complained to a nurse on November 20, 2020, that he was being 5 given medications unrelated to his flu symptoms and “not known to treat [the] 6 coronavirus,” his grievances about treatment choices had gone unanswered, and he had to 7 force himself to eat. He claims this information was presented to Defendant Payne. 8 Plaintiff also asserts that on November 20, a nurse informed Defendant Payne of Plaintiff’s 9 flu symptoms. 10 Plaintiff contends he did not see Defendant Cattolico until November 20, 2020. He 11 alleges Defendant Cattolico reviewed his “various medical symptoms requiring medical 12 treatment,” including flu symptoms, nausea, headaches, shortness of breath, dry mouth, 13 appetite loss, an inability to eat, weight loss, neck pain, shoulder pain, and numbness in his 14 arms and legs. 15 Plaintiff also claims he received a December 4, 2020 x-ray for his neck injury.

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

Love v. Simm's Lessee
22 U.S. 515 (Supreme Court, 1824)
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)
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)
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)
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)
United States v. Reese
2 F.3d 870 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)