Stewart v. Corizon Healthcare LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 3, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-02207
StatusUnknown

This text of Stewart v. Corizon Healthcare LLC (Stewart v. Corizon Healthcare LLC) 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
Stewart v. Corizon Healthcare LLC, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert J. Stewart, Jr., No. CV 20-02207-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Corizon Healthcare, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Robert J. Stewart, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Eyman, 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. 3). 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 $70.37. 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 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his three-count Complaint: Corizon 8 Healthcare, LLC; Centurion Healthcare, LLC; former Arizona Department of Corrections 9 (ADC) Director Charles L. Ryan; current ADC Director John Doe; Nurse Practitioner Sigi 10 Thomas; Nurses Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Norma, and Lee; Registered Nurses Beal, Floyd, 11 and Gallant; and Nurse Practitioner Natalie Bell. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he received inadequate medical care in violation of 13 the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that on September 17, 2016, he began suffering 14 from extreme lower back pain, which he assumed was related to his kidneys. On 15 September 18, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an emergency Health Needs Request (HNR) which 16 “the Corizon Health Inc. nurses” responded to the same day. Plaintiff alleges “medical 17 never diagnosed or treated Plaintiff’s pain while the suffering continued on and off until 18 June 18, 2018.” On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an HNR, complaining of “kidney 19 pain.” Plaintiff submitted another HNR on June 26, 2018, complaining that the pain was 20 worse. On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an HNR explaining that the pain was 21 interrupting his sleep, movement, and ability to eat. 22 On June 30 and July 5, 2018, Plaintiff submitted new HNRs “for failure to be seen, 23 treated, and worsening of pain.” On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff saw a Corizon medical provider 24 who ordered an x-ray and prescribed capsaicin cream, Naproxen, rest, and no work duty. 25 On July 16, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an HNR explaining the medications were not 26 providing relief and he had tingling and numbness in his left leg. 27 On November 24, 2018, Plaintiff experienced paralyzing pain in his left leg and a 28 medical emergency was activated. On November 25, 2018, Plaintiff saw an unknown 1 nurse who gave Plaintiff a cortisone shot. On November 26, 2018, an unknown medical 2 provider examined Plaintiff and prescribed Tylenol 3 twice per day, requested an MRI, and 3 issued a Special Needs Order for bed rest, “no duty,” and meals in living quarters. On 4 November 29, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an HNR for a wheelchair because he could not 5 walk without unbearable pain. On December 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an HNR 6 informing Corizon staff that the pain medication was not working. On December 3, 2018, 7 Plaintiff saw a nurse about continuing pain.

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. Dieter
429 U.S. 6 (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)
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)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stewart v. Corizon Healthcare LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-corizon-healthcare-llc-azd-2020.