Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01654/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01654-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MDR 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Virginia Reyes Quezada, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Dr. Steven D. Bastian, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-1654-PHX-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER 

On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff Virginia Reyes Quezada, who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. In September 7 and October 30, 2012 Orders, the Court denied the deficient 

Application to Proceed and a second, deficient Application to Proceed. In a January 28, 

2013 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s third Application to Proceed and dismissed the 

Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days 

to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

 On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). The 

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action. 

Case 2:12-cv-01654-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 05/20/13 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible 

claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw 

on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s 

specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must 

assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.

at 681. 

 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, 

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

Case 2:12-cv-01654-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 05/20/13 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 In her one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Dr. Steven D. 

Bastian. Plaintiff alleges a violation of her First Amendment rights regarding medical 

care. She contends that Dr. Bastian performed a surgery on her right hand and that at a 

follow-up appointment, she told Defendant Bastian that she was experiencing pain and 

“locking” in her right thumb. She asserts that Defendant Bastian determined that she was 

suffering from a “trigger” in her right thumb and that he would give her a steroid 

injection, rather than a surgery, and would schedule a follow-up appointment. Plaintiff 

contends that she experienced excruciating pain when Defendant Bastian’s nurse 

administered the injection and Plaintiff believes the nurse hit a nerve. 

 At a follow-up appointment, Defendant Bastian examined Plaintiff’s thumb, 

ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test to “see what went wrong from the prior 

steroid injection,” and stated that he was going to prescribe an anesthetic cream to help 

ease the pain. However, when Plaintiff returned to prison and inquired about the cream, 

she was told that no cream had been ordered. Plaintiff alleges that the MRI results were 

normal and that she has not received any further medical treatment for the injury to her 

thumb from the injection. 

 Plaintiff claims her thumb is permanently stiff and she feels Defendant Bastian is 

clearly aware of the significance of her injury, the pain she has endured, and her loss of 

her ability to use her thumb. She asserts that Defendant Bastian is “not fully meeting up 

to his oath as a doctor, an[d] not appropriately conducting himself as a professional” 

because he did not follow through and make sure that Plaintiff received the cream. She 

alleges that Defendant Bastian’s conduct “perfectly meets the standards of deliberate 

indifference.” 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01654-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 05/20/13 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 In her Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and her court costs 

and fees. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 Plaintiff’s claim arises, if at all, under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, not 

the First Amendment. However, not every claim by a prisoner relating to inadequate 

medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. To state a 

§ 1983 medical claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with “deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). A plaintiff must show (1) a 

“serious medical need” by demonstrating that failure to treat the condition could result in 

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and (2) the 

defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotations 

omitted). 

 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 

1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must 

both know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; “the official must both be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 

harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

837 (1994). Deliberate indifference in the medical context may be shown by a 

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and 

harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may 

also be shown when a prison official intentionally denies, delays, or interferes with 

medical treatment or by the way prison doctors respond to the prisoner’s medical needs. 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 

 Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary 

due care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. “Neither negligence nor 

gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference.” Clement v. California Dep’t of 

Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter 

Case 2:12-cv-01654-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 05/20/13 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of “indifference,” “negligence,” or 

“medical malpractice” do not support a claim under § 1983). The indifference must be 

substantial. The action must rise to a level of “unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. 

 Although Plaintiff’s allegations may support a claim of negligence or medical 

malpractice by Defendant Bastian, they do not support a claim that Defendant Bastian 

acted with deliberate indifference. Thus, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Count 

One. 

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

 Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in her First Amended Complaint, the 

Court will dismiss her First Amended Complaint. “Leave to amend need not be given if 

a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 

Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 

particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend her complaint. 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding 

whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

 Plaintiff has made two efforts at crafting a viable complaint. The Court finds that 

further opportunities to amend would be futile because Defendant Bastian’s conduct does 

not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will 

dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) and this action are 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 (2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the 

dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 2:12-cv-01654-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 05/20/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 (3) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of 

this decision would not be taken in good faith. 

 Dated this 17th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01654-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 05/20/13 Page 6 of 6