Steah 200537 v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJuly 28, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-01265
StatusUnknown

This text of Steah 200537 v. Shinn (Steah 200537 v. Shinn) 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
Steah 200537 v. Shinn, (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 Kee Nelson Steah, Sr., No. CV 21-01265-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Kee Nelson Steah, Sr., 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. 2). 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $166.58. 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 . . . . 28 . . . . 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). 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed 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 three-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for constitutionally deficient 7 medical care and denial of basic necessities. Plaintiff sues David Shinn, the Director of 8 the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADC); Corizon, a 9 private entity which until June 30, 2019, provided medical care for ADC prisoners under a 10 contract with ADC; Centurion, another private entity that since July 1, 2019 has provided 11 medical care to ADC prisoners under a contract with ADC; and 21st Century Oncology. 12 Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief. 13 In Counts I and II, Plaintiff alleges the following: 14 In 2011, Plaintiff felt a sharp pain in his right hip, which got worse in the following 15 weeks. Plaintiff sought medical care and his hip was x-rayed. The doctor ordered an MRI, 16 a PET-scan, and biopsy. Following these tests, Plaintiff was diagnosed with plasmacytoma 17 cancer1 in his right hip. In November 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to the Florence 18 Complex, and in December 2011, he began receiving a twelve-week course of radiation 19 therapy at 21st Century Oncology. One day during this period, Plaintiff awoke with 20 extreme pain in area of his right hip and he was unable to walk. Plaintiff discussed the 21 issue with Dr. DuPaul, a 21st Century Oncology physician. Dr. DuPaul told Plaintiff his 22 hip hurt so much because Plaintiff needed to use the hip more; however, the day before, 23 Plaintiff had walked without difficulty. Plaintiff told an ADC provider about the issue, but 24 the provider told Plaintiff to discuss it with Dr. DuPaul. 25 Because he was in severe pain, Plaintiff requested an x-ray. On February 8, 2012, 26 Plaintiff was taken for an x-ray. On February 15, 2012, an unidentified Corizon provider

27 1 Plasmacytoma is a type of cancer that begins in plasma cells and may turn into 28 multiple myeloma. See https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer- terms/def/plasmacytoma (last accessed July 22, 2021). 1 told Plaintiff the x-ray did not show a fracture and told Plaintiff to continue his course of 2 treatment. Plaintiff asserts the Corizon provider and Dr. DuPaul lied about the absence of 3 a fracture, and claims his hip had “completely collapsed.” (Doc. 1 at 4, 7.) Plaintiff was 4 issued a wheelchair, which he used for approximately four months, before being issued 5 crutches instead of the wheelchair. Plaintiff was in a “gr[e]at[] deal of pain” and walking 6 was difficult. (Id.) Plaintiff requested a cane because using the crutches put pressure on 7 his hip. At some point, Plaintiff was sent to the “hole” for unexplained reasons. (Id.) 8 Plaintiff repeatedly asked an unidentified ADC provider why his hip still hurt so much but 9 never received a “straight” answer. (Id.) Instead, medical staff continued giving Plaintiff 10 pain medication without determining or addressing the cause of his pain. 11 On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff was sent to Insight Imaging for an MRI, and on 12 February 6, 2013, Petitioner was sent to 21st Century Oncology.

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)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Rose
429 U.S. 5 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Hutto v. Finney
437 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
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)
United States v. Gerard Peter Mocciola
891 F.2d 13 (First Circuit, 1989)
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)
Steah 200537 v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steah-200537-v-shinn-azd-2021.