Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03736/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03736-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clinton Joseph Slone, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Karen Barklay, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3736-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Clinton Joseph Slone, a pro se state prisoner, filed an Amended Complaint alleging

deliberate indifference to his medical needs because (1) Defendant Dr. Karen Backlay failed

to promptly and properly diagnose and treat his injured ankle; (2) Defendant Nurse Susan

Buffington failed to promptly and properly diagnose and treat him for Ramsey Hunt

Syndrome; and (3) Defendant Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)

Dora Schriro failed to provide sufficient staff and money so that Plaintiff could receive

proper medical conditions (Doc. #24). Both parties have filed various and multiple motions.

Among other rulings, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, allow the case to

proceed, and deny Plaintiff injunctive relief.

I. Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging that Dr. Backlay, Buffington, and

Schriro were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs (Doc. #24). Defendants filed a

Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Defendants are entitled to

qualified immunity (Docs. ## 25, 51). Defendants concede that Plaintiff filed inmate

grievances, but argue that he did not name them in his grievances and his attempt to cover

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

their actions violated ADC rule that each grievance contain only one claim (Docs. ##25, 51).

Plaintiff argued that he was not required to name individual Defendants in his grievances and

that his grievances and the responses demonstrate that he provided sufficient facts for ADC

to be able to determine what his complaints were (Docs. ##31, 58).

Initially, Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Surreply (Doc. #43) will be granted. However,

Defendants’ Motion to File a Response to the Surreply (Doc. #49) will be denied as neither

the surreply or any response thereto would affect the Court’s decision. 

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner may

not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless all

available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017

(9th Cir.), cert denied 127 S.Ct. 232 (2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief

offered through administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

It is required in all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523

(2002). 

The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to “afford corrections officials time and

opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.”

Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Porter, 534 U.S. at 525). The

inmate is not required to specifically identify the defendant in a grievance unless required to

do so by the facilities grievance system. Jones v. Bock, Nos. 05-7058 & 05-7142,

manuscript op. at 19 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2007). Notably, ADC grievance system does not require

Plaintiff to specifically name the defendant.

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The Court has

broad discretion as to the method to be used in resolving the factual dispute. Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988). The proper

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

B. Analysis

An ADC inmate wishing to grieve an issue regarding his medical diagnosis or

treatment must first submit a complaint to their assigned Correctional Official III (CO III).

The CO III is to seek a response from the appropriate medical staff, investigate and attempt

to resolve the complaint. The inmate may appeal the CO III’s response to the Institution/Unit

Grievance Coordinator. The Grievance Coordinator forwards the grievance to the Facility

Health Administrator, who attempts to resolve the issue. The inmate may appeal the Facility

Health Administrator’s decision to the Director, at which time the grievance is forwarded to

the Deputy Director for Inmate Health Services. The Deputy Director investigates the

grievance and prepares a response, which is forwarded to the Director. The Director’s

response is final.

1. Ankle

Plaintiff filed an inmate letter complaining about not being seen due for a recent injury

to his left ankle (Doc. #25, ex. A). Plaintiff was provided a medical appointment, but filed

a grievance regarding his delayed appointment (Id.). In his grievance, Plaintiff indicated that

the doctor who examined him told him that he only has soft tissue injury (Id.). The grievance

was appealed and the merits of Plaintiff’s claim that he did not undergo an MRI was

addressed (Id.). Based on the record, although Plaintiff failed to name Dr. Backlay in his

grievance, he did indicate that he was dissatisfied with the treatment he received. Further,

although Plaintiff filed his initial letter before he was seen by Dr. Backlay, his grievance did

include his complaint regarding the treatment he received. Defendants’ argument that

Plaintiff improperly attempted to add claims to his grievance is without merit because, as

noted by Plaintiff, ADC considered the merits of the “added claims” and did not indicate to

Plaintiff that he failed to properly grieve these issues. In sum, ADC considered Plaintiff’s

complaints internally and Plaintiff provided sufficient facts so that ADC officials could

determine that he was complaining about the treatment he received from Dr. Backlay. See

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Jones, Nos. 05-7058 & 05-7142, manuscript op. at 19; Brown, 422 F.3d at 936. 

2. Ramsey Hunt Syndrome

In July 2005, Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Letter regarding the medical treatment he

received for an alleged mild stroke (Doc. #25, ex. A). Plaintiff indicated that Buffington

examined him, but failed to properly treat him (Id.). Plaintiff proceeded to appeal the denial

of his grievances, thereafter failing to specifically name Buffington (Id.). However, Plaintiff

is not required to name specific individuals in his grievances in order to later name them in

a § 1983 action. Plaintiff provided sufficient information in his grievances to allow ADC to

consider his complaints internally and determine who allegedly provide insufficient medical

treatment See Jones, Nos. 05-7058 & 05-7142, manuscript op. at 19; Brown, 422 F.3d at 936.

3. Failure to Provide or Fund Sufficient Medical Staff

In June 2005, Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Letter complaining about his inability to

obtain medical attention from an alleged stroke (Doc. #25, ex. A). Plaintiff indicated that he

was denied prompt medical attention because there was not enough medical staff available

(Id.). This grievance was sufficient to put ADC on notice that Plaintiff was complaining

about insufficient medical staff due to a staffing or funding issue. This grievance was

appealed to the highest level. In sum, based on the evidence before the Court, Plaintiff

exhausted his administrative remedies as to the claims raised in the instant action.

B. Failure to State A Claim/Qualified Immunity

This Court has already determined that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint sufficient

states a claim. Thus, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is more properly raised in a Motion to

Reconsider this Court’s screening order. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only

in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz.

1995). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration

must be filed within ten days after the filing of the Order that is the subject of the motion.

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

LRCiv 7.2(g). Defendants’ request is clearly untimely. Further, nothing in Defendant’s

motion causes the Court to reconsider its prior determination. Accordingly, dismissal on this

ground will be denied. 

Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity (Doc. #28). If

a defendant claims qualified immunity, the court must make two distinct inquires, the

“constitutional inquiry” and the “qualified immunity inquiry.” See Estate of Ford v.

Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2002). The “constitutional inquiry” asks

whether, when taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the facts alleged

show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.

194, 201 (2001). If so, a court turns to the “qualified immunity inquiry” and asks if the right

was clearly established at the relevant time. Id. at 201-02. This second inquiry “must be

undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”

Id. at 201.

At this early stage, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that his constitutional rights were

violated and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights as to deliberate indifference to medical

needs is clearly established. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994); Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Accordingly, Defendants’ request for reconsideration

will be denied.

II. Motion for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to Show Cause arguing that he

is not receiving sufficient medical care (Doc. #28). Plaintiff believed that he was having a

heart attack and contacted medical (Id.). Upon examination, Buffington determined that

Plaintiff had Bells Palsy (Id.). Plaintiff, however, believed he had Ramsey Hunt (Id.).

Plaintiff was subsequently examined by Dr. Salwitz who originally believed Plaintiff had

Bells Palsy and subsequently changed the diagnosis to Ramsey Hunt Syndrome (Id.).

Plaintiff concedes that he is receiving treatment for Ramsey Hunt Syndrome, but argues that

he should be treated differently and by a specialist (Id.).

Initially, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. #37) and

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

Defendants’ Motion to File a Surreply (Doc. #40) will be granted. However, Defendants’

request to strike Plaintiff’s exhibits will be denied. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’

Reply (Doc. #53) will be denied.

To obtain a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff must

demonstrate “(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable

injury to [him] if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring [him],

and (4) advancement of public interest (in certain cases).” Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d

1064, 1067 (9th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1096 (2005). Alternatively,

Plaintiff “must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance

of hardships tipping in [Plaintiff’s] favor.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-94

(9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Under either formulation of the test, Plaintiff must

demonstrate a significant threat of immediate irreparable injury. Midgett v. Tri-County

Metropolitan Transp. Dist. of Oregon, 254 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff maintained that Ramsey Hunt Syndrome is a serious medical condition and

if not properly treated will result in his disability, including the loss of senses. Plaintiff seeks

to have the Court order him examined and treated by a specialist. Plaintiff, however,

concedes that he is receiving treatment. Plaintiff’s evidence in support of his claims

regarding the severe nature of his medical condition and the lack of proper treatment is based

on his mother researching the internet and talking to unidentified specialists. Plaintiff has

submitted no medical affidavits, merely indicating that they are available. Without any

medical evidence, particularly considering that Plaintiff is receiving treatment, Plaintiff

cannot demonstrate that he is under a significant threat of immediate irreparable injury.

Thus, Plaintiff’s request for Injunctive Relief will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may

again seek injunctive relief if he can obtain the affidavits.

III. Motion for Reconsideration/Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend, lodging a Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. #30). The Magistrate Judge denied the motion, determining that the Second Amended

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

Complaint was duplicative as it merely rearranged the facts as set forth in the First Amended

Complaint (Doc. #57). Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider and Objection, arguing that the

Second Amended Complaint was an attempt to correct the deficiencies in his Amended

Complaint (Docs. ##62, 63).

A district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order where “the magistrate

judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A review

of the First Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint demonstrate that the

magistrate correctly determined that the complaints were nearly identical. Plaintiff merely

rearranged the facts slightly. Thus, the magistrate judge’s order was not clearly erroneous

and Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #25) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause (Doc. #28)

is denied without prejudice.

(3) Plaintiff’s for Leave to File Excessive Pages (Doc. #37) and Motion to File a

Surreply (Doc. #43) is granted.

(4) Defendants’ Motion to File a Surreply (Doc. #40) is granted. Defendant’s request

to strike Plaintiff’s exhibits is denied.

(5) Defendants’ Motion to File a Response to the Surreply (Doc. #49) is denied. 

(6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. #53) is denied.

(7) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsideration (Doc. #62) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03736-MHM-DKD Document 67 Filed 02/14/07 Page 7 of 7