Gwen v. Unknown Parties

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 5, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-02211·Unknown

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, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen is confined in CoreCivic’s Red Rock Correctional 17 Center, is representing himself, and has been granted permission to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s civil rights Complaint because he had 19 failed to state a claim and gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that 20 cured the deficiencies the Court identified. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First 21 Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with 22 leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and 3 declaratory relief from Defendants Yavapai County Jail Medical Providers, Heath Services 4 Administrator Becky P., Dr. Leon Caholico, and Captain Newnun. 5 In Count One, Plaintiff raises a claim under the Eighth Amendment regarding his 6 medical care. He alleges he met with a medical counselor on July 21, 2020. (Doc. 8 at 3.) 7 Plaintiff claims he informed the counselor that he had neck, back, and shoulder pain, was 8 unable to sleep because of the pain, was unable to perform everyday activities without 9 significant pain, was afraid he would have a permanent disability if his injury was not 10 treated, and had concerns about significant weight loss. (Id. at 3-4.) He also told the 11 medical counselor that he had not been seen by a doctor despite submitting several medical 12 needs requests and grievances. (Id. at 4.) 13 Plaintiff asserts he filed additional grievances because “[a] full week pas[sed] 14 without any follow-up as promised.” (Id.) He claims that between July 17 and 27, 2020, 15 he submitted grievances informing Defendant Newnun that he “had been diagnosed with a 16 serious medical condition and was not receiving adequate medical care.” (Id. at 5.) 17 Plaintiff also alleges he submitted a grievance to Defendant Becky P. on July 28, 2020, 18 explaining his medical conditions that required treatment and informing her that he was 19 not receiving adequate medical care or treatment and had not been seen by a doctor despite 20 having submitted several medical needs requests. (Id. at 4.) 21 Plaintiff claims that on November 15, 2020, Defendant Yavapai County Medical 22 Providers had still failed to address his medical conditions, despite Plaintiff “exhausting 23 several requests and grievances.” (Id.) He contends he “appealed” to a non-party member 24 of the nursing staff, who sent an electronic message to Defendant Becky P. requesting 25 Plaintiff be seen by a physician. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the non-party’s efforts, he saw Defendant 27 Caholico on November 20, 2020. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff claims he told Defendant Caholico 28 that he had neck, back, and shoulder pain; had numbness and tingling in his hands and 1 arms; was unable to sleep due to severe pain; was unable to perform everyday activities 2 without significant pain; was concerned about his “significant weight loss in general”; and 3 was experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms, including headaches, shortness of breath, a 4 dry mouth, a loss appetite, nausea, and significant weight loss because he had not eaten in 5 eight days. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff asserts he was scheduled for an x-ray of his neck on 6 December 6, 2020. (Id.) He claims that on January 25, 2021, a nurse delivered a message 7 from Defendant Caholico explaining that the x-ray showed possible degenerative arthritis 8 of the spine and that Plaintiff should let Defendant Caholico know if he wanted pain 9 medication. (Id.) 10 Plaintiff contends that other than the x-ray, he did not receive any medical treatment 11 for “numerous medical conditions requiring medical treatment.” (Id. at 5.) He alleges that 12 Defendants, “acting pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice,” were deliberately indifferent 13 to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and refused to provide adequate medical care, 14 treatment, or access to medical services. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff asserts Defendants had “actual 15 knowledge of a subjectively serious medical condition diagnosed by a professional 16 physician, but failed to act on the knowledge.” (Id.) He claims that as a result of 17 Defendants’ failure to act or exercise sound medical judgment, he suffered emotional 18 distress, fear, psychological pain, physical injury, a loss of sleep, and high blood 19 pressure.

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

Gwen v. Unknown Parties, (D. Ariz. 2022).

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

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
City of Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378 (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)
Flanory v. Bonn
604 F.3d 249 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
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)