Reid v. Centurion

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 1, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-01893
StatusUnknown

This text of Reid v. Centurion (Reid v. Centurion) 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
Reid v. Centurion, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Shawn Franklin Reid, No. CV 20-01893-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Centurion, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Shawn Franklin Reid, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Yuma, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6). 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 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 In his five-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges denial of constitutionally adequate 5 medical care. Plaintiff sues David Shinn, the Director of the Arizona Department of 6 Corrections (ADC), Corrections Officer (CO) IV Roman, and an unknown Food Service 7 Administrator. He also sues “Centurion-Corizon,”1 which Plaintiff identifies as the 8 medical provider for ADC prisoners. Plaintiff sues the following medical providers at the 9 Yuma Complex: Carli Meyer, Director of Nursing; Dr. Karen Barcklay; Dr. Jordan; 10 “medical practitioner” Clariss Nguella NaNa; Facility Health Administrators Lori Johnson 11 and Brian Hofer2; Carrie Smalley, “Tele Meds”; and Head Nurse Marcel Meza. Plaintiff 12 seeks injunctive and compensatory relief. 13 In Count I, Plaintiff alleges the following: 14 At some point, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Hepatitis C (HCV). On August 29, 15 2019, September 23, 2019, and July 21, 2020, “Defendants” ignored Plaintiff’s 16 documented liver disease by “wrongfully” prescribing Fluconazole, ibuprofen, and Tylenol 17 despite Plaintiff’s HCV. Warnings for Fluconazole state not to prescribe to persons with 18 liver conditions, but “the Medical Providers” ignored the warning, causing harm to 19 Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s HCV is documented in his medical records and he contends that “staff” 20 knew or should have known not to prescribe him Fluconazole.3 As his injury, Plaintiff 21 alleges that his liver became more severely damaged, causing stage four liver disease and 22 adversely affecting his health. 23

24 1 Plaintiff also refers to this Defendant as “Corizon-Centurion.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Until June 30, 2019, ADC contracted with Corizon to provide medical care to ADC prisoners. 25 Beginning July 1, 2019, ADC contracted with Centurion of Arizona, LLC, to provide medical care for ADC prisoners. 26 2 Plaintiff describes Johnson as a Federal Health Administrator and Hofer as a 27 Family Health Administrator with the Federal Health Administrator. Apparently, both are Facility Health Administrators. 28 3 Fluconazole is used primarily to prevent and treat fungal infections. 1 In Count II, Plaintiff alleges the following: 2 “Corizon-Centurion” medical providers, the non-party Cibola Warden, and 3 Defendant Shinn “failed to be responsible for Policy 1101 inmate access to health care” 4 and to provide inmate access to programs to ensure Plaintiff was transported to emergency 5 health care appointments.4 “Defendants” failed to have Plaintiff taken for follow-up 6 medical appointments at Desert Mirage Surgery Center, which were ordered on June 16, 7 2017 and received on July 5, 2017, for Plaintiff’s prostate medical procedure. 8 “Defendants” acted “in Deliberate Indifference” by “intentional” negligence and 9 incompetent actions resulting in delaying Plaintiff being seen at medical appointments for 10 seven months. As his injury, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered several months of 11 excruciating pain by being denied access to health care.

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)
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)
Moore v. United States
429 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
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)
Reid v. Centurion, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-centurion-azd-2021.