Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08178/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08178-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael J. Rich, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wexford Health Solutions, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8178-PCT-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael J. Rich, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis,

Bachman Unit, in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will order

Defendants Wexford Health Solutions and Drs. John Doe I and John Doe II to answer Counts

I and II of the Complaint. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $12.94. The remainder of the fee will be

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

///

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

II. 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, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.

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, No. 07-17265, 2010 WL

4673711 at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 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 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges two counts for constitutionally deficient medical care while he was

an inmate at the Yavapai County Jail. Plaintiff sues Wexford Health Solutions, which

provided medical services under contract with Yavapai County to inmates; Yavapai County

Medical Administrator Doe; and Drs. John Doe I and John Doe II. Plaintiff seeks

declaratory, compensatory, and punitive relief. 

Plaintiff alleges the following facts: Plaintiff was booked into the Yavapai County

Jail on March 20, 2007. At that time, Plaintiff was suffering from an ulcer on his left foot

and hammer toes on his right foot. On April 4, 2007, surgical debridement of the ulcer was

performed. Following the surgery, Plaintiff’s surgeon, Dr. Kincade, ordered that Plaintiff

be transferred to the Maricopa Medical Center (MMC) to receive intravenous antibiotics for

six to eight weeks. Dr. Kincade also prescribed bi-weekly aftercare visits with him to

remove callous build-up around the wound. Further, Dr. Kincade prescribed that Plaintiff

receive special post-surgical “pressure off” shoes for both feet to facilitate healing of

Plaintiff’s left foot and to prevent ulceration of his right foot due to his hammer toes. 

Plaintiff was transferred to MMC but only received antibiotics for one day. The

second day, Dr. Doe I, who was Plaintiff’s attending physician at MMC, discontinued the

antibiotics and discharged Plaintiff back to Yavapai County without explanation. Plaintiff

also did not receive bi-weekly aftercare visits with Dr. Kincade; instead aftercare visits were

scheduled at four to six week intervals. Plaintiff requested the prescribed special shoes, but

Wexford “advised” him that it would not provide the shoes because they were too expensive.

As a result of the surgery and denial of the prescribed shoes, Plaintiff favored his right foot.

That in turn, caused the hammer toes in his right foot to ulcerate and become infected.

Plaintiff repeatedly complained of the infection in his right foot to Wexford, Medical

Administrator Doe, and Dr. Doe II and requested bi-weekly aftercare and treatment of the

infection. Wexford and Medical Administrator Doe failed to provide treatment for the right

foot or to implement bi-weekly aftercare. Dr. Doe II only sporadically changed bandages

and refused to schedule Plaintiff for outside consultation.

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 3 of 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

1

 Osteomyelitis is defined as an “[i]nflammation of the bone marrow and adjacent

bone.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 289060 (27th ed. 2000). 

TERMPSREF - 4 -

Between May and July 2007, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Doe II, the attending

physician at Yavapai County Jail, on almost a daily basis that his left big toe was infected,

i.e., it was red, swollen, hot to the touch, and causing great pain. Dr. Doe II refused to

provide care, such as an outside consultation or the prescribed bi-weekly aftercare, but only

sporadically changed the dressing. Wexford and Medical Administrator Doe continued to

refuse the bi-weekly aftercare appointments. In July 2007, Plaintiff received an MRI, which

revealed that Plaintiff had osteomyelitis1

 in his left big toe. Plaintiff contends the infection

resulted from the failure to provide him the full course of intravenous antibiotics prescribed

by Dr. Kincade and bi-weekly aftercare. In August 2007, Plaintiff’s toe was amputated.

 Plaintiff was released from the Jail in August 2007. For the next six months, he was

able to obtain “proper medical care for his infected right foot,” but was unable to gain control

over the infection. In September 2008, the infection spread into the bone, requiring

amputation of the front half of his right foot. 

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Wexford Health Solutions (Wexford)

has a policy of denying or limiting medical care to reduce costs. He alleges the Medical

Administrator Doe was responsible for administering Wexford’s policy, resulting in Plaintiff

not receiving prescribed medical care. He alleges that Dr. Doe I discontinued prescribed

intravenous antibiotics, which was medically inappropriate under the circumstances. He

alleges that Dr. Doe II ignored and failed to treat Plaintiff’ obvious serious medical needs.

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff sufficiently states a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs in Counts I and II against Wexford, Medical Administrator Doe, and Drs. Doe I and

II. Wexford will be required to respond to the Complaint. As discussed below, Plaintiff will

be granted 60 days in which to file a notice of substitution as to the Doe Defendants.

V. Service on the Doe Defendants Cannot Be Effected at this Time

Plaintiff sues three fictitiously-named Defendants: Medical Administrator Doe, Dr.

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 4 of 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

John Doe I, and Dr. John Doe II. The use of anonymous type appellations to identify

defendants is generally disfavored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires the plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the action. As a practical matter,

it is impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal or his designee to serve a

summons and complaint or amended complaint upon an anonymous defendant. Thus,

although Plaintiff has alleged claims with enough specificity to require an answer, the Court

cannot direct that service be made on the Doe Defendants at this time.

The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of a

complaint, 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. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)).

The Court will allow Plaintiff 60 days in which to discover the actual names of the Doe

Defendants, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute their actual names by filing a

“notice of substitution.” See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. Failure to timely file a notice of

substitution will result in the dismissal of the Doe Defendants without prejudice. 

VI. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

///

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 5 of 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

C. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff must submit

an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply

may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

D. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 5.)

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $12.94.

(3) Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the filing date of this Order in which to

discover, by subpoena or otherwise, the identity of each of the Doe Defendants and to file

a “notice of substitution” providing each of the Defendant’s names in place of their fictitious

identities. 

(4) The Clerk of Court must issue three subpoenas in blank and send them to

Plaintiff.

(5) The Clerk of Court must enter a dismissal of any Doe Defendant for failure to

prosecute without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file a

“notice of substitution” as to any Doe Defendant within 60 days from the filing date of this

Order.

(6) Defendant Wexford Health Solutions must answer Counts I and II. 

(7) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the

Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 6 of 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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

Defendant Wexford Health Solutions.

(8) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(9) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the

filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the

action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

16.2(b)(2)(B)(I).

(10) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(11) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants of the commencement of

this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this Order. The

Marshal must immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and

waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a

Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the

Marshal must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the

summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process receipt and

return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the

personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 7 of 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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(12) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

(13) Defendant must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate

motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

(14) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(15) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

DATED this 5th day of January, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 8 Filed 01/07/11 Page 8 of 8