Gwen v. Unknown Parties

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 16, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02211
StatusUnknown

This text of Gwen v. Unknown Parties (Gwen v. Unknown Parties) 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
Gwen v. Unknown Parties, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Gerald Vaughn Gwen, No. CV 21-02211-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Yavapai County Jail Medical Providers, 13 et al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen, who is confined in CoreCivic’s Red Rock 17 Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 (Doc. 1). After the Court gave him an opportunity to either file an Application to 19 Proceed In Forma Pauperis or pay the filing and administrative fees, he filed an Application 20 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 21 and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $33.14. The remainder 26 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 27 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 2 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 7 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 8 III. Complaint 9 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and monetary damages 10 from Defendants Yavapai County Jail, Yavapai County Jail Medical Providers, Health 11 Services Administrator Becky P., and Doctor Leon Caholico. 12 Plaintiff raises a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments regarding his 13 medical care. He alleges that for over 2.5 years, Defendants showed deliberate indifference 14 to his serious medical needs by refusing to provide medical care, medical treatment, or 15 access to medical services. Plaintiff contends Defendants had “actual knowledge of a 16 subjectively serious medical condition that had been identified by a medical practitioner’s 17 radiology report”; failed to act, “even in the face of several medical requests and grievances 18 to provide medical care”; and “understood that what they were doing violated Plaintiff’s 19 constitutional rights.” He also asserts that the Yavapai County Sheriff’s deputies who 20 “directly participated in the grievance process,” were acting “pursuant to a policy, custom 21 or practice [that] deprived Plaintiff of medical care.” 22 Plaintiff claims Defendants exposed him to COVID-19 and other contagious 23 diseases when (1) Defendants housed him with an inmate who tested positive for 24 tuberculosis; (2) Plaintiff was housed in a small space for an indeterminate time with an 25 inmate who was suspected of having a highly contagious staphylococcus infection; and 26 (3) Plaintiff was housed with an inmate who had only been quarantined for six days before 27 being placed in the general population. Plaintiff contends the quarantined inmate “may 28 have infected” him. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants “intentionally and knowingly passed 1 on the serious medical issue(s) to the Arizona Department of Corrections with a willful 2 disregard to Plaintiff’s immediate and long-term health.” He contends sufficient notice 3 was provided to Defendants of “a serious medical condition requiring medical treatment” 4 that was “interfering with daily activities” and, therefore “the risk was obvious to Plaintiff’s 5 immediate health and delay in Plaintiff obtaining proper diagnoses or treatment.” 6 Plaintiff asserts that on July 17, 2020, he filed a grievance regarding “d[e]bilitating 7 health, weight loss, [and] neck, sho[u]lder and back pain.” He claims he was scheduled to 8 meet with a health services counsel, met with the counselor on July 21, and was instructed 9 to file another request for medical care. He also alleges the counselor “would follow-up 10 on the diet concerns,” but did not, so Plaintiff filed another grievance on July 28. Plaintiff 11 contends Defendant Becky P. responded to the grievance “without a resolution being 12 reached,” and the grievance was dismissed.

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

Related

United States v. Sparks
2 F.3d 574 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
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)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
Brady v. United States
24 F.2d 399 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
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)
Gwen v. Unknown Parties, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gwen-v-unknown-parties-azd-2022.