Radloff 042424 v. Centurion Health

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 24, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-01094
StatusUnknown

This text of Radloff 042424 v. Centurion Health (Radloff 042424 v. Centurion Health) 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
Radloff 042424 v. Centurion Health, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Russell Radloff, No. CV 22-01094-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Centurion Health, 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Russell Radloff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Lewis, has filed a June 28, 2022 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and a July 12, 2022 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7). 18 The Court will 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 $42.63. The remainder 23 of 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 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 Plaintiff names Centurion Health as Defendant in his two-count Complaint and 5 seeks money damages and injunctive relief. 6 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when 7 Defendant Centurion denied him surgery for tendonitis in his right elbow. Plaintiff states 8 he used to receive regular cortisone shots and physical therapy but they “have stopped.” 9 Plaintiff alleges he is in constant and severe pain “that keeps [him] from moving [his] arm 10 in certain positions.” Plaintiff also claims that he had to go from a “good paying job to a 11 job that pays very little and that can be hard to do on a ‘bad’ day such as damp or cold 12 weather.” 13 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Centurion violated his Eighth 14 Amendment rights by denying him a psychological evaluation. Plaintiff states that for the 15 past several years, he has been denied parole, mainly because “the parole board wanted 16 [him] to have a psychological evaluation.” Plaintiff claims that he has been denied every 17 time he has asked for an evaluation. Plaintiff asserts he has met “all the other issues the 18 parole board has wanted or asked for,” and that if he was given a psychological evaluation, 19 “there is a very good chance [he could] be or could have been released on parole.” 20 IV. Failure to State a Claim 21 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public 22 function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts to support 23 that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom 24 promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 25 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012); Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 1997) (per 26 curiam). A plaintiff must allege the specific policy or custom and how it violated his 27 constitutional rights. A private entity is not liable merely because it employs persons who 28 allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1139; Buckner, 1 116 F.3d at 452. 2 Plaintiff does not allege that any of the conduct described in the Complaint was the 3 result of a specific policy or custom of Defendant Centurion. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 4 failed to state a claim against Defendant Centurion. 5 V. Leave to Amend 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 7 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 8 first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 9 mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff 10 fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and 11 dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

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)
United States v. Pomponio
429 U.S. 10 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Elviraida Laracuente v. The Chase Manhattan Bank
891 F.2d 17 (First Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Radloff 042424 v. Centurion Health, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radloff-042424-v-centurion-health-azd-2022.