Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04335/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04335-0/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Adam Perkins, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-04335-PHX-MTL (MHB)

ORDER

On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela,1 who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant to 

Court Order” and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and lodged a pro se civil 

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a July 30, 2019 Order, Court granted 

the Motion to File, directed the Clerk of Court file the Complaint, and denied the 

Application to Proceed with leave to refile. On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a new 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion 

for Status. In a December 17, 2019 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed, 

granted the Motion for Status, 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. 

1 Plaintiff has also filed Complaints under the names Enrique Gabrielle Mendez, 

Enrique Mendez-Valenzuela, and Quennell Glover. Plaintiff is housed in a male facility, 

but identifies as female and refers to herself with feminine pronouns.

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 11
- 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

TERMPSREF

On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 15) 

and lodged a First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to 

Provide HNR Issues Under Seal” (Doc. 17). The Court will grant the Motions to Seal, 

order Defendants Andre, Eze, and Todd to answer Counts One and Two of the First 

Amended Complaint, and dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice.

I. Motions to Seal

In her Motions to Seal (Docs. 15 and 17), Plaintiff asks that she be allowed to file 

her First Amended Complaint and copies of her Health Needs Requests (HNRs) under seal 

because the documents contain information about her medical conditions. The Court will 

grant the Motions and direct the Clerk of Court to file under seal the First Amended 

Complaint (lodged at Document 16) and HNRs (lodged at Document 18).

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, 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 

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 11
- 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

TERMPSREF

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)). 

III. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the three-count First Amended 

Complaint: Assistant Facility Health Administrator Trina Randal; Nurse Practitioner C. 

Eze; Unknown Centurion Regional Medical Director; Facility Health Administrator

Spencer Sego; Director of Nursing Jessica Todd; Registered Nurses Christina Andre, 

Lupew, Wilheim, Crystal Price, and Fox; Correctional Officers II Hines, Bravo, and 

Clayburn; Sergeants Petermen, Ibarra, Reyes, and Gurrola; Associate Deputy Warden 

Blake Jensen; and Lieutenant Poteger. Plaintiff seeks money damages.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges her Eighth Amendment rights were violated when 

she was denied adequate medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that from May 8, 2019, to the 

date of filing the First Amended Complaint, she “made Randal, Eze, Andre, and Todd 

personally aware in writing, in person, and verbally that [she is] having problems with [her] 

s/p tube2 draining and RN Andre has done nothing to treat [her] for it.” Plaintiff states she 

also informed Defendants Lupew, Wilheim, Price, Fox, Hines, Petermen, Jensen, Bravo, 

Ibarra, Reyes, Gurrola, Poteger, and Clayburn that she had “liquid coming out of [her] 

stomach and pushing [her] sutures out as [she is] bloated and distended, [but] none of them 

got [her] to medical[,] they simply just listened to [her] and then walked off.” Plaintiff 

2 Plaintiff appears to refer to a tube attached to her suprapubic catheter.

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 11
- 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

TERMPSREF

claims she “verbally told them all” about her medical issues over the course of several 

months. Plaintiff states she is in pain and that her bladder can rupture and she can die.

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges violations of her right to adequate medical care. 

Plaintiff claims that from May 8, 2019, to the date of filing the First Amended Complaint, 

she “verbally, in writing, and personally told Randal, Eze, Andre, Lupew, Medical 

Director, Todd, Sego, Wilheim that [she] was not having any bowel movements and that 

had gone 25 days with no bowel [movements] and [she is] distended and in pure pain.” 

Plaintiff contends “Todd, Eze, Andre, have not treated the condition beyond laxatives that 

have proven not to work.” Plaintiff states that on May 27, 2018, she “had to be sent out 

911 due to this same issue in Lewis.” Plaintiff asserts Defendant Regional Medical

Director “is the person who approves any hospital trips and these Defendants know [she 

needs] to be sent to the hospital[,] but they do nothing at all to provide care.” Plaintiff 

alleges she has submitted multiple HNRs on the issue and they “have all been ignored.” 

Plaintiff states she can die from not having bowel movements. 

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges violations of her right to adequate medical care 

with respect to seizures. Plaintiff alleges that from May 8 to December 20, 2019, she 

informed Defendants Eze, Todd, and Andre that he has had seizures, but they ignored her 

medical conditions and have allowed her to be housed where “there is no room to 

backboard [her] out.” Plaintiff states this is contrary to policy.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Not every claim by a prisoner relating to inadequate medical treatment states a 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. To state a § 1983 medical claim, 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 v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006).

“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 

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 11
- 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

TERMPSREF

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 v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 

97, 104-05 (1976); 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 Corr., 

220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 

458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of “indifference,” “negligence,” or “medical 

malpractice” do not support a claim under § 1983). “A difference of opinion does not 

amount to deliberate indifference to [a plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.” Sanchez v. Vild, 

891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). A mere delay in medical care, without more, is 

insufficient to state a claim against prison officials for deliberate indifference. See Shapley 

v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 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.

A. Count One

In Count One, Plaintiff claims she told Defendants Randal, Eze, and Todd of 

problems with her catheter. Plaintiff does not allege what response, if any, Defendants 

Randal, Eze, and Todd provided. Plaintiff’s assertions are therefore insufficient to show 

Defendants Randal, Eze, and Todd were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical 

needs.

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 11
- 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

TERMPSREF

Plaintiff further alleges she informed Defendants Lupew, Wilheim, Price, Fox, 

Hines, Petermen, Jensen, Bravo, Ibarra, Reyes, Gurrola, Poteger, and Clayburn that she 

had “liquid coming out of [her] stomach and pushing [her] sutures out as [she is] bloated 

and distended, [but] none of them got [her] to medical[,] they simply just listened to [her] 

and then walked off.” These allegations are too vague to state an Eighth Amendment claim. 

Plaintiff does not allege when she told any of these Defendants about the issues with her

sutures or state how much time passed before she was seen by medical providers. 

Plaintiff’s medical records and HNRs show that she is regularly seen by medical personnel,

and Plaintiff does not allege that any delay in medical care she may have experienced as a 

result of Defendants “walking away” caused her further injury or harm. 

The Court will therefore dismiss Defendants Randal, Eze, Todd, Lupew, Wilheim, 

Price, Fox, Hines, Petermen, Jensen, Bravo, Ibarra, Reyes, Gurrola, Poteger, and Clayburn 

from Count One.

B. Count Two

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges she told Defendants Randal, Lupew, Sego, and 

Wilheim about her bowel conditions, but makes no further allegations against these 

Defendants. This is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim and the Court will 

dismiss these Defendants.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Regional Medical Director is responsible for 

approving hospital stays and knew Plaintiff needed to be sent to the hospital, but did 

nothing. Plaintiff does not allege why she needed to be sent to the hospital, rather than 

receive treatment at the prison’s medical facility, does not claim a medical provider 

requested that she be sent to the hospital for treatment, and does not allege how or when 

Defendant Regional Medical Director became aware that she needed to be sent to the 

hospital or when he or she denied a request to send Plaintiff to the hospital. Plaintiff’s 

allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 

Regional Medical Director in Count Two and the Court will dismiss this Defendant.

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 6 of 11
- 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

TERMPSREF

C. Count Three

Plaintiff provides virtually no information about her alleged seizures and provides 

no medical documentation showing she has be been diagnosed with a seizure disorder. 

Plaintiff does not state when her seizures began, on what specific dates she suffered 

seizures, or whether they were witnessed by staff or other inmates. Plaintiff has a lengthy, 

documented history of making false allegations regarding her medical needs and has been 

formally diagnosed with Munchausen’s syndrome.3 Without detailed allegations regarding 

her alleged seizures and supporting medical documentation, Plaintiff claims are 

insufficient to show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical 

needs. The Court will dismiss Count Three for failure to state a claim.

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has adequately stated Eighth Amendment medical

claims against Defendant Andre in Count One for the alleged denial of treatment related to 

Plaintiff’s catheter, and against Defendants Todd, Eze, and Andre in Count Two for denial 

of treatment regarding Plaintiff’s bowel condition. The Court will require Defendants 

Andre, Todd, and Eze to answer these claims.

VI. Warnings

A. Release

If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of her release, either (1) notify the Court 

that she intends to pay the unpaid balance of her filing fee within 120 days of her release 

or (2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 

3 See Doc. 85 in Valenzuela v. Taylor, CV 16-00951-PHX-NVW.

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 7 of 11
- 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

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

action.

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 Motions to Seal (Docs. 15 and 17) are granted; the Clerk of Court 

must file under seal the First Amended Complaint (lodged at Doc. 16) and the 

Exhibits (lodged at Doc. 18).

(2) Count Three of the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

(3) Defendants Randal, Unknown Regional Medical Director, Sego, Lupew, 

Wilheim, Price, Fox, Hines, Petermen, Jensen, Bravo, Ibarra, Reyes, Gurrola, Poteger, and 

Clayburn are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Eze must answer Count One and Defendants Eze, Andre, and 

Todd must answer Count Two, in their individual capacities, as described above.

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

Amended Complaint (Doc. 16), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver 

forms for Defendants Eze, Andre, and Todd.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 8 of 11
- 9 -

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) Plaintiff must complete4and 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint on a Defendant within 90 

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)(ii).

(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the First 

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) 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. 

(10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and First 

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not 

the Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of the notice and request for waiver of service 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being charged the cost of 

personal service.

(11) The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the 

summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or is not returned 

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

the Marshal must:

. . . .

. . . .

4

If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections, 

Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee 

works. Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 9 of 11
- 10 -

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

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, First Amended Complaint, 

and this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) 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, First Amended 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 Procedure, unless otherwise 

ordered by the Court.

(12) Defendants Eze, Andre, and Todd must answer the relevant portions of the 

First Amended 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.

(13) 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.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 10 of 11
- 11 -

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

(14) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns 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 12th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-04335-MTL-MHB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 11 of 11