Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Demetrius Antwan Wilson,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County 

Correctional Health Services, Medical Staff 

Samantha Perez, Medical RN Lois Quaid,

Defendants.

No. CV 14-01613 PHX JAT (MEA)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG:

Plaintiff docketed a prisoner civil rights complaint and a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on July 17, 2014. Plaintiff docketed a motion seeking leave to 

amend his complaint on October 2, 2014. See Doc. 5. On October 16 and November 12, 

2014, Plaintiff docketed motions “for case status.” See Doc. 6 & Doc. 7. In an order 

(Doc. 8) entered November 20, 2014, the Court noted Plaintiff had three “strikes” but 

that, because Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged he was in imminent danger,1Plaintiff could 

proceed in this matter in forma pauperis. The Court dismissed without prejudice Counts 

 

1

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his stoma is painful and very itchy. He further 

alleges that his stoma has either a rash or fungus around it. He further alleges that 

his stoma is “hanging out of his colostomy.” Plaintiff further alleges that the 

doctor that performed the colostomy advised that Plaintiff should not have the 

colostomy for more than six months, but the medical staff at the Fourth Avenue 

Jail has deemed the surgery an elective procedure.

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 8
- 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

One through Seven, Nine, and Eleven through Sixteen of the amended complaint lodged 

at Doc. 5, and dismissed without prejudice Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County 

Correctional Health Services.

2

The Court ordered Defendant “Medical Staff Samantha” 

to answer Count Eight of the amended complaint and ordered Defendant “Medical R.N. 

Lois” to answer Count Ten, with regard to events alleged to have occurred in August and 

September 2014.3 Service was executed on these Defendants, who answered the 

complaint on February 17, 2015. See Doc. 20. 

On February 18, 2015, a scheduling order was issued, requiring any motion to 

dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law based on the failure to exhaust be docketed by 

April 3, 2015. On April 2, 2015, Defendants docketed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for 

failure to comply with Arizona’s “notice of claim” statutes. See Doc. 28.4 

 

2

Plaintiff does not name any Defendant in his allegations in Counts One through 

Six and Eleven through Sixteen, and thus has failed to state a claim against any 

named Defendants in those counts. Accordingly, Counts One through Six and 

Eleven through Sixteen will be dismissed.

***

In Counts Seven and Nine, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff alleged the same 

causes of action under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause in Counts 

Eight and Ten. Thus, Counts Seven and Nine are duplicative of Counts Eight and 

Ten. ... Counts Seven and Nine will be dismissed.

3

Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim 

based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant 

“Medical Staff Samantha” in Count Eight, and Defendant “Medical Staff 

Samantha” will be required to answer that count.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff also states a Fourteenth Amendment due process 

claim based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant 

“Medical R.N. Lois” in Count Ten, and Defendant “Medical R.N. Lois” will be 

required to answer that count.

4

 Arizona Revised Statutes § 12–821.01(A) requires a person who has a state-law claim 

against a public entity or a public employee to file the claim with the person authorized to accept 

service or the individual public employee within 180 days “after the cause of action accrues. Any 

claim not filed within that time ‘is barred and no action may be maintained thereon.’” Barth v. 

Cochise County, 213 Ariz. 59, 62, 138 P.3d 1186, 1189 (Ct. App. 2006). Defendants also 

docketed a motion (Doc. 29) seeking judgment as a matter of law on all of Plaintiff’s claims 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to administrative exhaust his remedies prior to bringing suit. 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 8
- 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

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff docketed a motion (Doc. 23) seeking leave to further

amend his complaint. In the motion Plaintiff asserts he has exhausted his administrative 

remedies and that he was forced to handle feces with his bare hands. Plaintiff further 

alleges that he is not provided with proper supplies for his colostomy and that he is 

refused an operation to reverse the colostomy. Attached to the motion is a Health Needs 

Request form asking for the names of the “CHS Medical Director and Administration and 

the medical staff who answer all my grievances.” Doc. 23, Attach. Also attached is an 

Inmate Legal Request form seeking the same information. Id., Attach. Also attached to 

the pleading is a proposed second amended complaint naming as defendants “John Doe 5 

CHS Medical Director”, “John Doe 5 Medical Director and Administrator”, “Officer 

Perez A9697”, “John Doe 4 medical HS585 et al.”, “John Doe 6 officer A8845 et al.”, 

two individuals, B. Piirinen and Scott Frye, named as “external referees”, “R.N. Lois”, 

“John Doe 9, CHS medical provider”, “John Doe 14, medical CH168”, “Medical Staff 

Mary”, “Medical Samantha”, and several John Doe defendants identified as “medical 

staff.”

The proposed second amended complaint iterates eighteen claims for relief, all 

associated with Plaintiff’s assertion that he is denied proper colostomy supplies and that 

he has been denied a colostomy reversal surgery. See id., Attach. Plaintiff’s claims 

against the medical director and the administrator defendants are based on their 

adjudication of Plaintiff’s grievances regarding the medical care received from the other

defendants with regard to the other defendants’ failure to provide adequate functional 

colostomy supplies to Plaintiff on specific dates in August through December of 2014. 

Count I alleges an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against John Doe 

2 CH718, John Doe 4 145685 and Maricopa Correctional Health Services, B. Piirinen 

and John Doe 5, Medical Director Administrator, citing grievance 2014-07125, for denial 

of surgery. Count II is a claim for due process with regard to the denial of surgery 

against the same defendants named in Count I. Count II is a claim for cruel and unusual 

punishment for being forced to hand feces with his bare hands without gloves or 

antibacterial soap through December of 2014 against John Doe 5 Medical Director, 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 8
- 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

MCH, John Doe 2 CH718, John Doe 4H3585 and B. Piirinen with regard to grievances 

2014-06940 and 2014-07089. Count IV alleges the same facts as Count III but asserts a 

violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process of law. Count V is an Eighth Amendment 

claim with regard to Plaintiff being subjected to ridicule by Officer A8845 and a lack of 

adequate supplies for his colostomy occurring on June 23, 2014, against “Medical Nurse 

Mary”, and alleges there is video surveillance of this incident. Plaintiff further alleges 

that John Doe 5 Medical Director Administrator, John Doe 4 Medical HS585 and Scott 

Frye’s response to his grievance on this matter was inadequate. Count VI states the same 

claim as Count V but alleges these acts constituted a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment right to due process of law. Count VII alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s right 

to due process based on the failure to provide medical care with regard to the deprivation 

of colostomy supplies on June 20, 2014, by “Medical Staff Samantha.” Count VIII 

alleges the same basic facts as Count VII, alleging that “Medical Staff Samantha, when 

she attends me has attitude and tries to provoke me by snapping at me and giving the 

impression that my serious medical needs are a burden to her and unimportant.” Count 

IX alleges Plaintiff was denied his right to due process by “Graveyard Shift R.N. Lois” 

on July 5, 2014, when she refused Plaintiff medical attention. Count X states an Eighth 

Amendment claim based on the same facts as those stated in Count IX. 

Count XI alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment because Plaintiff received 

the wrong size colostomy bag on August 1, 2014, and three other times that week, and on 

November 30, 2014, against John Doe 10 Medical and John Doe 11 and John Doe 12. 

Plaintiff alleges that the event in November was despite the resolution of a grievance 

which provided that he was to be provided with the correct size of colostomy bag. Count 

XII alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process based on the same facts alleged 

in Count XI. Count XIII alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights 

because Plaintiff was denied medical care on August 7, 2014, and that he was left “with 

feces all over me and cloths (sic) until next day” against John Doe 13 Medical Staff. 

Plaintiff alleges John Doe Provider 1 “told me he wasn’t here for my pain and they 

wasn’t going to do my surgery, so I’m left in discomfort.” Plaintiff alleges he was denied 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 8
- 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

adequate pain medication. Count XIV alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s right to due 

process based on the facts alleged in Count XIII.

In Count XV Plaintiff contends he was denied his Eighth Amendment rights on 

September 19, 2014, by John Doe 15 Medical and on December 3, 2014 by John Doe 16 

Medical. Plaintiff alleges John Doe 16 “got attitude saying I’m not stupid” and that this 

defendant was unconcerned about potential bleeding. In Count XVI Plaintiff alleges a 

violation of his right to due process based on the same facts alleged in Count XV. In 

Count XVII Plaintiff asserts he was denied his Eighth Amendment rights on September 

23, 2014 by John Doe 17 Medical, alleging he “had to go to court with my intestines out 

holding nasty old wafer it.” Plaintiff alleges he was also denied his rights on October 14, 

2014, by Officer Perez. Count XVIII alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment rights based on the same facts alleged in Count XVII.

Plaintiff asks the Court to order the ADOC to provide him with colostomy reversal 

surgery and 2.5 million dollars in damages, including punitive and compensatory 

damages and pain and suffering.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend its 

pleading once as a matter of course within certain time limits, or, in all 

other instances, with the court’s leave.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).“ 

‘[L]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the 

plaintiff can correct the defect.’” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (emphasis added) 

(quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir.

1988)). “[T]he ‘rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is 

particularly important for the pro se litigant. Presumably unskilled in the 

law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to make errors in pleading than the 

person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’” Id. at 1131 

(quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)).

 A district court abuses its discretion by denying leave to amend where the 

complaint’s deficiencies could be cured by naming the correct defendant. 

See, e.g., id. at 1130–31 (complaint named the wrong defendant); Lucas v. 

Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248–49 (9th Cir. 1995) (complaint failed to 

name individual defendants). If the identity of any defendant is unknown, 

“the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify 

the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 

the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” 

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 5 of 8
- 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

***

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when he acts with 

‘deliberate indifference’ to the serious medical needs of an inmate.” Snow, 

681 F.3d at 985 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S.Ct. 

1970 [] (1994)). “Indifference ‘may appear when prison officials deny, 

delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown 

by the way in which prison officials provide medical care.’” Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992)...

***

We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying [the 

plaintiff] leave to amend his second amended complaint to name the correct 

defendants and to discover whether any delays on their part in providing 

medical treatment caused or exacerbated his Lithium toxicity constituting 

indifference to his medical needs.

Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2013).

Defendants responded to the motion on April 10, 2015, arguing, inter alia, that the 

motion should be denied because the proposed amendments would be futile. See Doc. 

32. Defendants assert:

Plaintiff’s allegations that he was not provided antibacterial soap and 

gloves do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff has 

identified nothing more than a difference of opinion with medical personnel 

regarding reversal of his colostomy. Defendants have already filed a 

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #28) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to provide 

notices of claim to the existing Defendants; the amendment as to these 

Defendants would be futile. With regard to new Defendants, Plaintiff 

alleges that the John/Jane Doe defendants were grossly negligent; Plaintiff 

could not and has not served a Notice of Claim upon a fictitious defendant. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to timely serve his Notice of Claim upon 

fictitious Defendants, amending his Complaint to add state law claims 

including gross negligence claims will be futile. Therefore, the amendment 

should be denied.

 Plaintiff’s disagreement with the external referees’ decisions and the 

decisions of “medical director admin” regarding his grievances does not 

state a claim for deliberate indifference. The external referees and 

administrative personnel are not empowered to provide medical care to the 

Plaintiff; the referees hold administrative positions only as do the 

administrative personnel Plaintiff references in his proposed Second 

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the external 

referees and “medical director admin.” and permitting the amendment to 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

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

add them as defendants would be futile.

Doc. 32 at 6-10.

All of the claims alleged in the second amended complaint are claims of violation 

of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights, which are not subject to Arizona’s “notice of 

claim” statute. Accordingly, the claims are not “futile” in that regard. Additionally, 

Plaintiff has alleged identifying information with regard to the John Doe defendants who 

denied him medical care on specific dates, thereby curing the deficiencies noted in the 

Court’s screening order. 

However, Plaintiff states several claims as both Eighth Amendment and 

Fourteenth Amendment claims; because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the 

events alleged in the second amended complaint the claims are properly brought pursuant 

to the Fourteenth Amendment. Because they are duplicative and allege a violation of 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, which are

properly brought by one in custody after conviction and not by a pretrial detainee, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Counts 1, III, V, X, XI, XIII,. XV, and XVII be 

dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff does not alleges specific facts that indicate that Defendants Fry and 

Piirinen personally deprived Plaintiff of his federal constitutional rights. Accordingly, 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants Fry and Piirinen be 

dismissed without prejudice

The Magistrate Judge further finds that, construing Plaintiff’s proposed second 

amended complaint broadly and taking the facts alleged as true, Plaintiff has sufficiently 

stated a claim for relief against Defendants “Medical Staff Mary,” John Doe 2 CH718, 

John Doe 4 H3585, John Doe 5 Medical Director Administrator, John Doe 10, John Doe 

11, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 16, John Doe 17, (in addition to Defendants 

Perez and Quaid). Therefore,

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be allowed to participate in 

discovery to determine the identities of Defendants “Medical Staff Mary,” John Doe 2 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 7 of 8
- 8 -

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

CH718, John Doe 4 H3585, John Doe 5 Medical Director Administrator, John Doe 10, 

John Doe 11, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 16, John Doe 17, and thereafter be 

allowed to attempt service on these Defendants.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Dated this 20th day of April, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 37 Filed 04/20/15 Page 8 of 8