Hart v. Terros Health

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08140
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Mariella Jacqueline Hart, No. CV-25-08140-PCT-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Terros Health, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Mariella Jacqueline Hart filed this suit against numerous police officers, 16 the Mohave County Attorney’s Office, a pet hospital, and others. Hart also filed a motion 17 to proceed in forma pauperis. That motion is granted but the complaint does not state a 18 claim for relief and is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 19 The complaint focuses on events that began in May 2018 when Hart was transported 20 to a hospital by the fire department. (Doc. 1 at 9-10.) Hart received treatment at the hospital, 21 including a blood draw and administration of “the deadly drug Klonopin.” (Doc. 1 at 10- 22 11.) Hart later attempted to obtain the medical records from her treatment but she received 23 only “altered” records. (Doc. 1 at 17.) Some of the altered records included “forged and 24 fabricated statements,” potentially made by an employee of North Valley Pet Hospital who 25 was “impersonating a psychiatrist.” (Doc. 1 at 15.) The most recent event alleged against 26 any individual or entity named as a defendant in the complaint occurred on June 15, 2022, 27 when Hart “received the last set of altered medical records.” (Doc. 1 at 18.) 28 1 A frivolous complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 2|| Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action may be dismissed as frivolous “where the || defense is complete and obvious from the face of the pleadings.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 5 || Hart’s complaint indicates she is attempting to sue each defendant for violating her 6 || constitutional rights. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Assuming all defendants could qualify as state actors who can be sued for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Hart’s claims are 8 || barred by the statute of limitations. 9 Section 1983 claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). The last event tied to any defendant in the |} complaint occurred in June 2022, well outside the two-year statute of limitations. Therefore, Hart’s claims are untimely and must be dismissed.! 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of 17|| defendants and close this case. 18 Dated this 7th day of July, 2025. 19 20 WV, hy op a | G. / 1 LAA ALAA WO At Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 1 Tf Hart is attempting to allege state-law tort claims, those claims also are barred by a two- year statute of limitations. A.R.S. § 12-542.

_2-