Masterson v. Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 1, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-01950
StatusUnknown

This text of Masterson v. Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry (Masterson v. Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry) 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
Masterson v. Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Reno Masterson, No. CV 21-01950-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff Reno Masterson, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and paid the filing and administrative fees. The Court will dismiss the 19 Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 24 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 26 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 27 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 28 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 1 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 2 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 3 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 5 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 8 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 9 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 10 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 11 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 12 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 13 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 14 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 15 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 16 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 17 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 18 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 19 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 20 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 21 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 23 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 24 II. Complaint 25 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 26 Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (“ADC”); CoreCivic, 27 Inc. (“CoreCivic”); Red Rock Correctional Center Warden Bruno Stolc; and Red Rock 28 Correctional Center Health Administrator Matthew Musson. 1 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights 2 by failing to provide adequate medical care. He claims that prior to being confined in the 3 Red Rock Correctional Center, he was confined in the Maricopa County Jail, where he 4 received daily wound care for severe burns that require “regular and constant treatment to 5 avoid infection and any related arising conditions that may require serious intervention.” 6 Plaintiff alleges he received wound care when he first arrived at the Red Rock Correctional 7 Center, but, after two months, it was discontinued “without adequate explanation or 8 medical basis.” 9 Plaintiff contends that after the wound care was discontinued, he began to feel pain 10 and weakness in his lower extremities. He claims that when he complained about his pain, 11 he was accused of “not having a medical condition requiring treatment” and “using the 12 alleged symptoms as a ruse to obtain pain medication.” Plaintiff asserts that even after he 13 lost control of his legs, which “necessitat[ed] the use of a wheelchair,” Defendants did not 14 provide “basic and adequate medical care.” 15 Plaintiff claims he developed a serious infection, requiring “emergency transport” 16 to a medical facility and a laminectomy “to address the scope of the infection.” He alleges 17 he was hospitalized and the treating physician told him that “the condition requiring 18 emergency surgery was caused by the initial infection from the ever[-]present wounds.” 19 Plaintiff alleges that even after he returned to the Red Rock Correctional Center, he needed 20 to “constantly demand wound care.” 21 III. Failure to State a Claim 22 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 23 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 24 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 25 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 26 pled. Id. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 A. Defendant ADC 2 The Arizona Department of Corrections is not a proper Defendant. Under the 3 Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may 4 not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. 5 Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 6 Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. Likewise ‘arms of the 7 State’ such as the Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under section 8 1983.” Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation 9 omitted). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections. 10 B. Defendant CoreCivic 11 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public 12 function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts to support 13 that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom 14 promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 15 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012); Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 1997) (per 16 curiam). A plaintiff must allege the specific policy or custom and how it violated his 17 constitutional rights.

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

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)
United States v. Morrison
429 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Masterson v. Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masterson-v-arizona-department-of-corrections-rehabilitation-and-reentry-azd-2021.