Valenzuela v. Grey

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 10, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05045
StatusUnknown

This text of Valenzuela v. Grey (Valenzuela v. Grey) 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
Valenzuela v. Grey, (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 Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, No. CV 19-05045-PHX-MTL (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Kendall Grey, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela,1 who is confined in 16 the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant to 17 Court Order” (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and lodged a pro 18 se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a December 4, 2019 Order, 19 Court granted the Motion to File; directed the Clerk of Court file the Complaint; and denied 20 the Application to Proceed with leave to refile. On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 21 Motion for Status (Doc. 12) and a Motion to Provide Documents Under Seal (Doc. 13). 22 On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma 23 Pauperis (Doc. 15). 24 The Court will grant the Application to Proceed, dismiss the Complaint with leave 25 to amend, grant the Motion for Status to the extent this Order informs Plaintiff of the status 26 of this case, and grant the Motion to Provide Documents Under Seal. 27 28 1 Plaintiff has also filed Complaints under the names Enrique Gabrielle Mendez, Enrique Mendez-Valenzuela, and Quennell Glover. Plaintiff is biologically male, but identifies as female and refers to herself with feminine pronouns. 1 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 2 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $2.66. The remainder of 5 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 6 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 8 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 9 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 10 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 11 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 13 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 14 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 15 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 16 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 17 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 18 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 19 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 20 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 21 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 22 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 23 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 24 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 25 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 26 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 27 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 28 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 1 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 2 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 3 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 4 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 5 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 6 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 7 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 8 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 9 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 10 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 12 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 13 III. Complaint 14 Plaintiff names Dr. Kendall Grey, Regional Medical Director Ladele, Nurse 15 Practitioner Joanna Burns, and Medical Director Stewart as Defendants in her two-count 16 Complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 17 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges violations of her right to adequate medical care. 18 Plaintiff claims that on May 12, 2019, she “became aware that Corizon Dr. Grey and 19 Dentist [illegible] & Dr. Ladele, Dr. Stewart committed malpractice and deliberately 20 misdiagnosed [her].” Plaintiff claims that after reviewing records “and consulting [with] 21 counsel it [wa]s brought to [her] attention that Dr. Hanson . . . has said there is no way that 22 tooth #31 could cause the damage to [her] face on the right side due to the x-ray he took 23 and where the root of the tooth were and where the paresthesia starts it is caused by a lesion 24 on the base of [her] brain.” Plaintiff asserts she received records from an oral surgeon that 25 say “tooth #31 didn’t cause the damages.” Plaintiff contends she was misdiagnosed, is no 26 longer receiving any treatment, and “the condition is not treated by NP Burns at all.” 27 Plaintiff also argues the response to her grievance “does not have the correct response at 28 all and it’s not about pain medication it’s about the malpractice and negligence deliberately 1 being done.” Plaintiff alleges she is suffering from pain on the right side of her face; 2 numbness on her entire right-side forehead, face and jaw; and emotional and mental 3 anguish. 4 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that from April 30, 2019, to present, she has “been 5 denied the proper treatment that she has been on for over a year and approved by Dr. Ladele 6 and determined by Dr. Ladele and Dr. Babich to be medically necessary for her conditions, 7 and she has been on the treatment and it didn’t end [un]til she came to Florence.” Plaintiff 8 claims “she is not being treated at all” and “she needs the stuff to treat her condition and 9 she is deliberately being denied it.” Plaintiff claims when she “came to Florence . . .

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

Related

United States v. Hooe Et Al.
7 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court, 1805)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Pomponio
429 U.S. 10 (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)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Eric Sanchez v. Duane R. Vild
891 F.2d 240 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
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)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
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)
Valenzuela v. Grey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valenzuela-v-grey-azd-2020.