Ruelas 358987 v. Thornell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 10, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01808
StatusUnknown

This text of Ruelas 358987 v. Thornell (Ruelas 358987 v. Thornell) 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
Ruelas 358987 v. Thornell, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lionel Isaac Ruelas, No. CV-24-01808-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Lionel Isaac Ruelas, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Eyman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and a Motion for Appointment of 18 Counsel (Doc. 4). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed, deny the Motion for 19 Appointment of Counsel without prejudice, and dismiss the Complaint with leave to 20 amend. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 22 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $27.83. The remainder 25 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 26 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 28 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such 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 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 1 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 2 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 3 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 4 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 5 III. Complaint 6 In his single-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department of Corrections, 7 Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) Director Ryan Thornell, Nurse Practitioner Siji 8 Thomas, Medical Grievance Coordinator Paul Shipley, and NaphCare Chief Medical 9 Officer Jeffrey Alvarez, in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff asserts a claim 10 regarding his medical care. He seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. 11 Plaintiff alleges the following: 12 Plaintiff suffers from vertigo, and to shower safely, he needs a shower chair. On 13 January 5, 2024, Plaintiff was sent to the emergency room because he was experiencing 14 extreme vertigo. On January 5, 2024, after Plaintiff was released from the emergency 15 room, Defendant Thomas told Plaintiff that he would receive a shower chair and issued a 16 special needs order (SNO) for the shower chair. When the shower chair did not arrive, 17 Plaintiff “continued to make inquiries and requests to medical” for the shower chair. Each 18 time, Defendant Thomas responded that the chair was ordered on January 5, 2024. 19 On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff fell in the shower, injuring his head and shoulder. 20 Five days after the fall, during a follow-up appointment with CNA Hoover, Hoover told 21 Plaintiff that Defendant Thomas had never ordered the shower chair. Defendant Thomas 22 also failed to treat Plaintiff’s new injuries, “pushing them off as though Plaintiff [faked] 23 his illness.” 24 Plaintiff contends that Defendant Thomas was deliberately indifferent by 25 acknowledging that he has a serious medical need, “which only can be resolved by medical, 26 but actively and knowingly ignored his medical needs,” which placed him directly in 27 harm’s way and resulted in his fall in the shower. Plaintiff asserts his head and shoulder 28 injuries “add[ed]to” his underlying conditions “and will become complicated if they 1 continue to remain untreated.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Thomas “has biases when 2 it comes to incarcerated people,” which “drive her desire to cause harm to incarcerated 3 people rather than treat[] their underlying conditions.” 4 Plaintiff apparently submitted a grievance asserting that Defendant Thomas had 5 failed to order the shower chair.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
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)
United States v. Johnnie T. Warren
25 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Joseph McCoy v. Ernest Roe
509 F. App'x 660 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ruelas 358987 v. Thornell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruelas-358987-v-thornell-azd-2024.