Hughes v. Shinn

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided November 13, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-08246·Unknown

Opinion

WO JL Travis Charles Hughes, No. CV 20-08246-PCT-MTL (ESW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER David Shinn, et al., Defendants.

On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff Travis Charles Hughes, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a “Motion for a TRO and a and Preliminary Injunction” (“Motion for TRO”) (Doc. 4), a “Request for Certification as a ‘Class’ Per Rule 23(c)(1)(a)” (“Request for Class Certification”) (Doc. 6), and a “Motion for the Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to § 1915” (“Motion for Appointment of Counsel”) (Doc. 7). In a September 24, 2020 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed and gave him 30 days to pay the $350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee. On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff paid the filing and administrative fees. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motions and dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. II. Complaint In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director David Shinn, Warden Jeff Wrigley, GEO Group Incorporated (“GEO Group”), and Correct Care Solutions/WellPath (“CCS”). Plaintiff asserts claims of a threat to his safety, constitutionally inadequate medical care, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). He seeks monetary and injunctive relief, as well as his costs of suit. In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that in January 2019, apparently while using recreation equipment, he suffered an abdominal hernia that quickly developed into a life- threatening condition. Plaintiff claims this injury was preventable and could have been avoided with posted warnings or instructions on the equipment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant GEO Group’s Inmate Handbook provides that when using recreation equipment, safety practices must be followed. According to Plaintiff, this statement “is an admission” by Defendants that exercise “might be a hazardous activity” that requires “heightened awareness of possible risks” and adherence to safety practices. Plaintiff claims that safety is not a “basic human instinct,” and sometimes it is “the antithesis to our fallible nature.” Despite this, Plaintiff contends, Defendants do not post instructions or warnings on recreation equipment or pamphlets regarding use of the equipment. Plaintiff asserts no training is provided and no “specialized employees [are] retained.” Thus, according to Plaintiff, Defendants show deliberate indifference to prisoners’ safety with respect to recreation equipment. In Count Two, Plaintiff asserts a claim under the ADA/RA. He alleges that the hernia he suffered significantly restricted his mobility over the last 18 months, and recreational activities are impossible. As a result, Plaintiff has gained more than 100 pounds. Sitting or standing for more than 15 minutes is extremely painful, and Plaintiff has had to modify how he showers and defecates, as well as other activities of daily living. Plaintiff’s sleep is severely disrupted, and he cannot carry even light objects. He walks unsteadily and frequently falls. On one occasion, he “blew out” his knee and had to use crutches for weeks. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have not provided a permanent walking device, such as a cane, any pain management, heat therapy or “TENS,” a double mattress, physical therapy, or other medical care that would allow Plaintiff to participate in prison programming. It is painful for Plaintiff to sit and do homework for his mandatory prison classes. In the last 18 months, Plaintiff has requested and been denied an inmate porter, who could help Plaintiff access prison services, such as the law library, the dining hall, modified recreation, basic hygiene, the prison store, and property. Plaintiff alleges he is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA and RA and is being denied reasonable accommodations for his disability. He asserts he does not have meaningful access to programs, and the programs in which he does participate cause him pain or are dangerous because the prison has failed to accommodate his disability. In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that in January 2019, while he was using recreation equipment, Plaintiff “literally felt [his] stomach ‘tear.’” He immediately rested, but the pain dramatically increased over the next couple of days. Plaintiff sought medical care and was issued a hernia belt and a bottom bunk. Defendant CCS only advised Plaintiff to buy pain relievers at the prison store. Plaintiff’s abdominal protrusion quickly grew from the size of a pea to the size of a large grapefruit. The pain was unbearable, and Plaintiff could no longer e

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

Hughes v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2020).

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

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Brooks v. Marbury
24 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1826)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (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)
Edison v. Douberly
604 F.3d 1307 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Georgia
546 U.S. 151 (Supreme Court, 2006)
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)
Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Limited
605 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1979)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)