Ward 113886 v. NaphCare Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 16, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-03676
StatusUnknown

This text of Ward 113886 v. NaphCare Incorporated (Ward 113886 v. NaphCare Incorporated) 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
Ward 113886 v. NaphCare Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Calvin Clinton Ward, No. CV-24-03676-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare Incorporated, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Calvin Clinton Ward, 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. 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 $26.78. 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 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 1 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In his single-count Complaint, Plaintiff names NaphCare Incorporated 5 (“NaphCare”) as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff asserts a claim regarding his medical care. 6 He seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief, punitive damages, and his fees 7 and expenses for this case. 8 Plaintiff alleges the following: 9 On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a health needs request (HNR) stating he had 10 several masses on his stomach that were causing him extreme pain. On June 3, 2024, 11 Plaintiff submitted another HNR stating he had been waiting weeks to be seen about the 12 painful masses/lumps on his torso, that the “situation had gotten much worse,” and that 13 there was something “seriously wrong.” On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a third HNR 14 again stating that he had been waiting weeks to be seen for the painful masses that were all 15 over his torso. Plaintiff wrote that his pain was at an 8 out of 10 “all the time.” 16 On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an informal complaint against NaphCare. 17 Plaintiff stated that he had numerous masses on his torso that were causing him extreme 18 pain and that his pain was at an 8 out of 10 all the time. Plaintiff wrote that the pain was 19 affecting his “everyday life,” and it was “almost impossible to sleep.” Plaintiff stated that 20 the masses were “getting bigger fast” and asked that the informal complaint be treated as 21 an emergency request for medical care. Plaintiff did not receive a response to his informal 22 complaint. 23 On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a grievance against NaphCare, again stating 24 that he had masses growing all over his torso that were causing him extreme pain, that the 25 masses were getting bigger “really fast,” and that his pain was now at a 10 out of 10 every 26 day, even in his sleep. Plaintiff wrote that sleep was impossible, and his medical situation 27 was affecting his everyday life. Plaintiff asked that the grievance be treated as an 28 emergency request for medical care. On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff received a response to 1 his grievance stating that his informal complaint had been answered on July 12, 2024, that 2 Plaintiff was scheduled for an ultrasound and then to see a dermatologist, and that a 3 treatment plan would be determined based on the results of the test and the specialist visit. 4 On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a grievance appeal. Plaintiff explained “his 5 entire medical situation” and stated that he “was at a complete loss as to what to do because 6 he believed that it was ‘now clear’” that NaphCare “just did not care about him.” Plaintiff 7 wrote that he was experiencing very intense pain that had “made its way into his hernia,” 8 the upper right side of his leg, and into his right testicle, which was purple and bruised. 9 Plaintiff’s grievance appeal was denied. The response stated that an ultrasound had been 10 performed and that a treatment plan would be determined “by the results of the diagnostic 11 tests ordered.” 12 On August 24, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an HNR “begging for help.

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)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ward 113886 v. NaphCare Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-113886-v-naphcare-incorporated-azd-2025.