James H. Schofield v. Katie Hobbs, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 2, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-04794·Unknown

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 James H. Schofield, No. CV-25-04794-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Katie Hobbs, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff James H. Schofield, who is confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Lewis, 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. 2). The Court will 18 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 $9.31. The remainder of 23 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, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 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 a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 2 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his two-count Complaint: Arizona 8 Governor Katie Hobbs and former Arizona Governors Doug Ducey and Jan Brewer; 9 Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADCRR) Director Ryan 10 Thornell and former ADCRR Directors David Shinn and Charles Ryan; ADCRR Assistant 11 Director John A. Doe and former ADCRR Assistant Director Larry Gann; Warden Walker; 12 Deputy Warden Town; Grievance Coordinator Vargas; and former ADCRR Medical 13 Services Assistant Director John B. Doe. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 14 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment right to 15 adequate medical care. In 2010, Plaintiff sustained injuries to his back after falling from 16 an upper bunk. Plaintiff received pain medication. After x-rays returned negative results, 17 he was prescribed ibuprofen, but no further treatment. The ibuprofen “had no effect on 18 [Plaintiff’s] pain, resulting in Plaintiff’s start of self-mediation, which led to drug 19 addiction.” (Doc. 1 at 6.) 20 In August 2018, Plaintiff began experiencing painful spasms in his lower back and 21 lower extremities. Plaintiff submitted a Health Needs Request (HNR) stating he was 22 experiencing extreme pain and could barely walk. A medical provider referred him to a 23 neurologist and ordered Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). On September 12, 2018, 24 Plaintiff submitted an HNR stating his back was “seriously damaged,” he could not walk, 25 lift a cup of water, or turn without “making [him] fall to his knees,” and needed help. (Id.) 26 He again received x-rays “and their negative results were incorporated in the denial of 27 follow-up medical attention.” (Id.) Throughout 2018 and 2019, Plaintiff sought medical 28 care for his lower back injuries and resulting pain. 1 On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff received an MRI of his lumbar spine. Throughout 2 2020 and 2021, he “continued to give notice of his pain and suffering and the referral to be 3 seen by a neurologist went unexecuted.” (Id. at 7.) In July 2021, Plaintiff began to vomit 4 and defecate blood. Plaintiff was later told ibuprofen had “caused the creation of abrasions 5 in [his] stomach and lower intestine” and this “began a period of various alternate pain 6 treatments, without [him] being seen by a neurologist.” (Id.) Throughout 2021, 2022, and 7 2023, Plaintiff submitted HNRs regarding pain relief and his deteriorating physical health; 8 he claims these were ignored and he did not see a neurologist. 9 On March 20, 2024, and in autumn 2024, Plaintiff had a second and third MRI. (Id.) 10 He did not see a neurologist. In May 2025, he began suffering seizures; the cause of the 11 seizures remains “undetermined.” (Id. at 8.) On October 4, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an 12 HNR regarding “all his serious medical needs surrounding the injury he suffered in 2010” 13 and requested to be referred to a neurologist. (Id.) On November 9, 2025, he was seen by 14 a medical provider.

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

James H. Schofield v. Katie Hobbs, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

James H. Schofield v. Katie Hobbs, et al. (James H. Schofield v. Katie Hobbs, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Folks v. Kirby Forest Industries Inc.
10 F.3d 1173 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Cagle Ex Rel. Estate of Butler v. Sutherland
334 F.3d 980 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States
429 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
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)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)