Scott v. GEO Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJuly 29, 2022
Docket3:22-cv-08129
StatusUnknown

This text of Scott v. GEO Corporation (Scott v. GEO Corporation) 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
Scott v. GEO Corporation, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bobby Scott, No. CV 22-08129-PCT-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 The GEO Corp., et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On July 15, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Bobby Scott, who is confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison-Kingman, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), a Motion for Appointment of 18 Counsel (Doc. 4), a Request for the Court to Issue a Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 5), 19 and a Memorandum of Law and Declaration in support of the request for a preliminary 20 injunction. The Court will grant the Application to Proceed, dismiss the Complaint with 21 leave to amend, and deny without prejudice the Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 22 Request for the Court to Issue a Preliminary Injunction Order. 23 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 24 A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis 25 if: 26 the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or 27 appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 28 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 1 imminent danger of serious physical injury. 2 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The imminent danger exception applies “if the complaint makes a 4 plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at 5 the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). 6 In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that his twenty-first lawsuit, Scott v. Stewart, 7 CV 05-00714-TUC-FRZ, was dismissed because he has three strikes. He claims the 8 current action “meets the 3 strikes exemption because it [concerns Plaintiff] being denied 9 medical care which places [Plaintiff] in imminent danger.” Plaintiff alleges a skin cancer 10 clinic twice froze off his skin cancer and, at the last visit, scheduled him for a follow-up 11 visit and indicated that they would “utilize other removal methods if [the cancer] came 12 back again.” He contends the follow-up visit was supposed to occur two years ago, but he 13 has not been taken back to the clinic or otherwise treated, and the skin cancer is “swelling 14 up and hurting,” which “is what skin cancer does when it’s at spreading stages.” Liberally 15 construed, these allegations are sufficient to meet the imminent danger requirement. 16 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 19 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 20 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 22 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 23 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 27 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 28 . . . . 1 III. Complaint 2 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants the GEO Corporation, 3 Dr. Richardson, Nurse Practitioner Lucero, Director of Nursing Taylor, Facility Health 4 Administrator/Health Services Administrator/Registered Nurse Michelle Voigt, Complex 5 Warden Rigley, Deputy Warden Moorish, Sergeant Gleason,1 Corrections Officer (CO) IV 6 Cole, CO III Thacker, “MNI” Pluckett, Administrative Assistant B. Curtis, and Arizona 7 Department of Corrections Director Shinn. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks 8 injunctive relief and monetary damages. 9 In Count One, Plaintiff raises a claim under the Eighth Amendment regarding his 10 medical 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)
De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States
325 U.S. 212 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (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)
Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Limited
605 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1979)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scott v. GEO Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-geo-corporation-azd-2022.