Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01237/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01237-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

JDDL-K 

SC 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carl Dean Schlobom, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mountain Vista Medical Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-1237-PHX-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff Carl Dean Schlobom, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis, Bachman Unit in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se Complaint in 

Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, Attach. 4.) In it, Plaintiff named as 

Defendants Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), 

and Richard Pratt, the Interim Division Director of the Division of Health Services for 

ADC, among others. Ryan and Pratt were served with the Complaint on May 16, 2013. 

On June 20, 2013, Ryan and Pratt removed the case to federal court based on federal 

question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) They represented that all of the other then-served 

Defendants consented to the removal. (Id.) Following removal, the Stryker Corporation 

filed a motion to dismiss the case. (Doc. 5.) In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

appointment of counsel and later filed a response to a motion to dismiss that had been 

filed by Defendant Mountain Vista Medical Center (Mountain Vista) while the case was 

in state court. (Doc. 6, 8.) Mountain Vista then filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

“second response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by [Mountain Vista]” because Plaintiff 

had previously filed a response to the motion in state court. (Doc. 10.) Finally, 

Defendant Vasiq filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 12.) 

The Complaint in this case facially supports that subject matter jurisdiction is 

proper in federal court and that the case was timely removed after service. However, the 

Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim or as 

duplicative of claims in a previously-filed case, Schlobom v. Ryan, No. CV11-1753-

PHX-DGC (MEA). The Court will deny the motions to dismiss filed by Stryker 

Corporation and Vasiq and will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. 

I. Removal to Federal Court was Proper 

A defendant may remove any civil action brought in state court over which the 

federal court would have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). That is, a civil action 

that could have originally been brought in federal court may be removed from state to 

federal court. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A federal court has 

original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

 The Complaint in this case facially supports that subject matter jurisdiction exists 

in federal court because Plaintiff alleges violations of his federal constitutional rights. 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442. Further, Defendants removed the action from state court within 30 

days after being served and represent that other then-served Defendants consented to 

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The Court concludes this case was properly removed. 

II. Motion to Strike

 As noted above, Plaintiff filed a response in this Court to a motion to dismiss filed 

by Mountain Vista in state court. Mountain Vista has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

response as redundant of a response filed by Plaintiff while the case was in state court. 

The Court will grant the motion to strike because Mountain Vista’s motion to dismiss has 

not been re-filed in this Court. 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.6(c) provides that: 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 2 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

 If a motion is pending and undecided in the state court at the time of 

removal, the Court need not consider the motion unless and until a party files and 

serves a notice of pending motion. The notice must: (1) identify the motion by the 

title that appears in its caption; (2) identify any responsive or reply memoranda 

filed in connection with the motion, along with any related papers, such as 

separately filed affidavits or statements of fact; and (3) state whether briefing on 

the motion is complete, and, if not, it must identify the memoranda or other papers 

yet to be filed. 

 Because Mountain Vista has not filed its motion to dismiss in this Court, 

Plaintiff’s opposition filed in this Court was improper. Accordingly, the Court will strike 

Plaintiff’s response. 

III. 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 3 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

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)). 

 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 

Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of 

advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. 

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to 

decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s 

Complaint will be dismissed failure to state a claim, but because it may possibly be 

amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 

IV. Complaint 

 In addition to Ryan and Pratt, Plaintiff sues the following current or former ADC 

employees: Facility Health Administrator (FHA) Terry Allred, J. Kinton, and Bruce 

McMorran; Thomas Bell, D.O.; Tara Diaz, Lewis Complex Warden; and Michael AduTutu, Pratt’s predecessor. Plaintiff also sues Wexford Health Services Inc. (Wexford), 

and Sumi Erno, a Wexford site manager at the Lewis Complex; an unknown 

manufacturer of medical hardware1

; Mountain Vista Medical Center (Mountain Vista); 

and Muhammad Vasiq, M.D., David Robertson, D.O., and Yvel Moreau, M.D., who all 

 

1

 Although Plaintiff states in his Complaint that the manufacturer is unknown, he 

caused a copy of the Complaint to be served on the Stryker Corporation, which apparently manufactured the medical hardware at issue and which has filed a motion to 

dismiss. 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 4 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

practiced medicine at Mountain Vista. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief.

 As pertinent to Plaintiff’s claims in his Complaint, from July 1, 2012 until 

March 4, 2013, Wexford provided inmate health care under a contract with ADC. 

Effective March 4, 2013, Corizon Health Inc. took over the provision of medical care to 

ADC inmates under a contract with ADC.2

Plaintiff alleges the following facts in his Complaint: on September 4, 2010, 

Plaintiff was assaulted and injured by ADC officers while he was housed in Special 

Management Unit I (SMU I). Plaintiff was transported to Mountain Vista for emergency 

surgery for a compound fracture of his tibia and fibula and treatment of other injuries. 

Plaintiff was unconscious when he arrived at Mountain Vista and has no memory of 

talking to anyone about how he was injured. ADC contracted with Mountain Vista and 

Vasiq, Robertson, and Moreau to perform or assist in surgery. According to Plaintiff, 

during surgery, muscle and nerve tissues were destroyed or damaged resulting in a loss of 

feeling to portions of Plaintiff’s left leg below the knee and causing “continuous and 

extreme chronic pain.” (Doc. 1, Attach. 4 at 2A.) In addition, as a result of the surgery, 

Plaintiff’s left leg was half an inch longer than his right leg; this difference caused 

excruciating pain in Plaintiff’s lower back, left leg, and neck. Plaintiff contends that the 

medical hardware was defective and/or malfunctioned, bent, and broke in his leg, 

resulting in extreme pain that continues to the present. He contends that Defendants 

involved in the surgery are liable for installing defective hardware or for improperly 

inserting the hardware causing it to bend or break. 

 In October 2010, nurses in the Manzanita Hospital Unit of the Tucson Complex 

took crutches and a wheelchair used by Plaintiff as no longer necessary. In November 

2010, a nurse cut off Plaintiff’s cast and removed staples from his leg and told him that 

he was medically fit for transfer. Plaintiff received no follow-up care from the doctors 

who performed the surgery. Plaintiff was also stopped receiving morphine pain 

 

2

 See http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/divisions/health/ Health_Svcs_Division 

_Corizon.aspx (last visited July 18, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 5 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

medication and was instead given Gabapentin and Ibuprofen. Plaintiff has suffered from 

continuous pain in his left knee, leg, and ankle, and in his lower back and neck. 

 In January 2011, Plaintiff passed out while climbing stairs to the second floor, 

where he was being housed despite a Special Needs Order (SNO) for a lower tier/lower 

bunk assignment because his back was unstable. Plaintiff was unconscious for up to 20 

minutes before medical staff arrived to transport him to the complex medical department. 

Medical staff examined Plaintiff and contacted an off-site physician, who did not order an 

MRI or CT scan. Plaintiff had to walk back to his unit, but he was placed in a first floor 

cell and assigned a lower bunk. Plaintiff contends that he blacked out after being 

assaulted by unknown staff on September 5, 2010. 

 In February 2011, Plaintiff was taken for an off-site consultation with an 

orthopedist and x-rays were taken of his leg and ankle. Plaintiff did not actually see the 

orthopedist, who was in surgery, before being returned to the Lewis Complex. Plaintiff 

contends that the x-rays showed that the medical hardware had become bent, broken, and 

displaced. 

 On May 25, 2011, an orthopedist measured Plaintiff for orthopedic shoes and 

found a half inch difference between Plaintiff’s left and right legs. Plaintiff did not 

receive orthopedic shoes until September 20, 2011 due to delays in ADC approving 

payment. 

 In July 2011, Plaintiff was taken for an off-site visit to Goodyear Hospital, where 

x-rays were taken. The orthopedist who read the x-rays recommended surgery to remove 

medical hardware from Plaintiff’s left leg. In January 2012, Plaintiff was scheduled for 

surgery to remove the medical hardware by Dr. John Vanderhoof, but Dr. Vanderhoof 

refused to operate after Plaintiff asked that the hardware be preserved as evidence for a 

possible lawsuit. Vanderhoof stated that he felt uncomfortable performing the surgery in 

light of potential litigation. Plaintiff was returned to the Lewis Complex. 

 On July 1, 2012, Wexford’s contract with ADC became effective. As of that date, 

Defendant Erno became the site manager at the Lewis Complex for Wexford. Plaintiff 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 6 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

contends that Erno denied him the opportunity to have surgery performed on his leg due 

to the cost to Wexford. 

Plaintiff currently receives Gabapentin, Tramadol, and Ibuprofen for extreme pain 

in his left leg, lower back, and cervical spine, but prison medical staff refuse to prescribe 

narcotic pain-relievers, which are prescribed to non-prisoners with similar conditions. 

On that basis, Plaintiff contends that he is receiving substandard care. Plaintiff further 

contends that the medical hardware in his leg needs to be removed and that further testing 

is required to assess the extent of his disability. Since July 2011, Plaintiff has used a 

wheelchair because he can only walk short distances without extreme pain or falling. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Ryan and Pratt have continued to deny him medically 

appropriate care, including surgery to remove the medical hardware and a neurological 

evaluation. 

 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Allred has denied surgery on his leg due to the 

cost. He also contends that Allred was aware of his injuries, but ignored Plaintiff’s 

requests, complaints, and grievances. 

 He contends that Wexford ordered medical staff to cancel all off-site consultations 

and thereby denied him surgery and a neurological consult. 

 Plaintiff alleges that since his arrival at the Barchey Unit in April 2011, Defendant 

Bell has ignored and downplayed his injuries and denied off-site consultations and 

adequate pain treatment. Plaintiff also contends that Bell is not qualified to diagnose or 

treat Plaintiff’s injuries without input from specialists. 

V. Duplicative Claims 

 On September 6, 2011, Plaintiff commenced his first case concerning the above 

events in this Court. Schlobom v. Ryan, No. CV11-1753-PHX-DGC (MEA). After 

counsel appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf in the case, Plaintiff filed a second amended 

complaint. Id., doc. 20. On April 16, 2013, certain defendants were dismissed, but Ryan, 

Adu-Tutu, Wexford, and Bell were required to respond to the second amended complaint. 

Id., doc. 28. 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 7 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

 On August 28, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a third amended 

complaint. Id., Doc. 54. In relevant part, the Court stated that “To the extent that 

Plaintiff’s newly presented claims are duplicative of claims he presented in his 2013 civil 

rights case, the Court will consider whether they are duplicative when it issues a 

screening order in the newly filed case.” Id. at 3. In addition to Defendants Ryan, AduTutu, Wexford, and Bell, Plaintiff sued correctional officers Reed, Trough, and Benson 

and Dr. Vanderhoof and their respective spouses in the third amended complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges that Reed, Trough, and Benson unilaterally removed Plaintiff’s 

wheelchair without medical authorization and despite Plaintiff’s obvious medical need. 

Id., doc. 55, ¶¶ 50, 113, 114. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Vanderhoof was under contract 

with Wexford and recommended surgery to remove hardware from Plaintiff’s leg, but 

then refused to perform that surgery.3

 Id., doc. 55, ¶¶ 17, 53, 54, 117, 118. 

 Plaintiff’s claims in this case against Ryan, Adu-Tutu, Bell, and Wexford are 

duplicative of the claims in the third amended complaint filed in CV11-1753. 

Accordingly, Defendants Ryan, Adu-Tutu, Bell, and Wexford and the claims against 

them will be dismissed from this action as duplicative. 

VI. Failure to State a Federal Claim Against the Remaining Defendants

 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the 

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of 

state law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. 

Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, a plaintiff must 

allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant 

and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that 

defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

A. Allred, Pratt, Diaz, Kinton, McMorran, and Erno 

Plaintiff sues current or former FHAs Allred, Kinton, and McMorran, former 

 

3

 As noted herein, Wexford did not begin providing medical care to ADC inmates until after the events at issue involving Dr. Vanderhoof. 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 8 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

Interim Division Director of the Division of Health Services Pratt, Complex Warden 

Diaz, and the Lewis Complex site manager for Wexford Erno. While each of these 

Defendants may be sued under § 1983, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any of them. 

 To state a claim against a defendant, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of 

his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an 

individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted 

as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 

1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, there is no respondeat superior liability under 

§1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A 

supervisor in his individual capacity, “is only liable for constitutional violations of his 

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the 

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. In addition, 

where a defendant’s only involvement in allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial 

of administrative grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy the 

alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for 

purposes of § 1983. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999); accord 

Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F.Supp.2d 743, 765 (W.D. Mich. 2009); Stocker v. Warden, 

No. 1:07-CV-00589, 2009 WL 981323, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009); Mintun v. 

Blades, No. CV-06-139, 2008 WL 711636, at *7 (D. Idaho Mar. 14, 2008); see also

Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir. 2006) (a plaintiff must allege 

that a supervisor defendant did more than play a passive role in an alleged violation or 

mere tacit approval thereof; a plaintiff must allege that the supervisor defendant somehow 

encouraged or condoned the actions of their subordinates). 

 Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support when and/or where, as well as specifically 

how, any of the above Defendants violated his constitutional right to medical care for his 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 9 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

serious medical needs. He makes only vague and conclusory assertions. Although pro se

pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), 

conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 

that were not initially pled. Id. Plaintiff neither alleges facts to support that the above 

Defendants directly violated his constitutional rights, nor facts to support that any of them 

promulgated, endorsed, or condoned a policy, practice or custom that resulted in a 

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a federal 

claim against the above Defendants and they will be dismissed. 

B. Mountain Vista and Stryker Corporation 

According to information available on-line, Mountain Vista Medical Center is a 

Delaware limited partnership.4

 Plaintiff also sues the manufacturer of the medical 

hardware used to repair his leg, which he alleges was defective. Plaintiff caused Stryker 

Corporation (Stryker) to be served, although he did not file a notice substituting Stryker 

as the unknown manufacturer. 

 Claims under § 1983 may be directed at persons and “bodies politic and 

corporate.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 688-89. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress 

intended municipal corporations and other local government units to be included among 

those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Id. at 689-90. That proposition has been 

extended to corporations that act under color of state law. See Sable Commc’s of Cal. 

Inc. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel Co., 890 F.2d 184, 189 (9th Cir. 1989) (willful joint 

participation of private corporation in joint activity with state or its agent taken under 

color of state law). 

 There are four ways to find state action by a private entity for purposes of § 1983: 

(1) the private actor performs a public function, (2) the private actor engages in joint 

 

4

 See http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/TNT_Search_engine.dll/ZoomTNT?NME_ ID=3006564&NME_CODE=F1LP (last visited Oct. 31, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 10 of 27
- 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 

JDDL-K 

activity with a state actor, (3) a private actor is subject to governmental compulsion or 

coercion, or (4) there is a governmental nexus with the private actor. Kirtley v. Rainey, 

326 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the public function test, “the function 

[performed by the private actor] must traditionally be the exclusive prerogative of the 

state.” Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 1995); see

Kirtley, 326 F.3d at 1093; Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 554-555 (9th Cir. 2002). A 

privately owned corporation that provides medical care to state inmates under contract 

with a state performs a public function that is traditionally the exclusive prerogative of 

the state. 

 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional 

public function, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that his constitutional rights were 

violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom promulgated or endorsed by the 

private entity. See Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 1997); Street v. 

Corrections Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996); Wall v. Dion, 257 F. 

Supp.2d 316, 319 (D. Me 2003); see also Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 

727 (4th Cir. 1999); Rojas v. Alexander’s Dep’t Store, Inc. , 924 F.2d 406, 408 (2d Cir. 

1990); Lux by Lux v. Hansen, 886 F.2d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 1989). 

 Mountain Vista performed a traditional public function, i.e., providing health care 

to a state inmate under a contract with ADC. Assuming without deciding that Mountain 

Vista may be sued under § 1983, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support that his 

constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom 

promulgated or endorsed by Mountain Vista. For that reason, Plaintiff fails to state a 

federal claim against Mountain Vista. 

 Plaintiff also sued the unknown manufacturer of the medical hardware used to 

repair his leg, which apparently was the Stryker Corporation. The provision of medical 

hardware is not a traditional public function. Nor has Plaintiff alleged facts to support 

that Stryker engaged in joint activity with a state actor, was subject to governmental 

compulsion or coercion, or had a nexus with a state actor. Even if he had, Plaintiff 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 11 of 27
- 12 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

merely alleges that Stryker is liable for defective products. Plaintiff has not alleged facts 

to support that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or 

custom promulgated or endorsed by Stryker. For both reasons, Plaintiff also fails to state 

a federal claim against Stryker. 

C. Drs. Vasiq, Robertson, and Moreau

 Plaintiff sues Drs. Vasiq, Robertson, and Moreau for alleged negligence in 

connection with their treatment for his injuries at the Mountain Vista Medical Center. 

While these Defendants may be sued under § 1983 for constitutionally deficient medical 

care where they treated Plaintiff under contract with ADC, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to 

support that any of them rendered constitutionally-deficient medical care. 

 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. 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 12 of 27
- 13 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

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 

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. 

 While Plaintiff alleges that Drs. Vasiq, Robertson, and Moreau acted negligently 

in repairing his leg, he does not allege facts to support that they acted with deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff thus fails to state a federal 

constitutional violation against these Defendants. 

VII. State Law Claims Against the Remaining Defendants

 Plaintiff also alleges state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice. 

Where a federal court has original jurisdiction over an action, such as a case asserting 

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction allows a federal court 

to exercise “pendent” or “supplemental” jurisdiction over closely-related state law 

claims. Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a)). Because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim against the remaining 

Defendants in his Complaint, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state law 

claims in his Complaint and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c). If Plaintiff seeks to pursue those claims in this action, he must re-allege those 

claims in any amended complaint. 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 13 of 27
- 14 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

VIII. Leave to Amend 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 

first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 

mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If 

Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended 

complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 

Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

 A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or that was dismissed 

without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

IX. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

Plaintiff has asked the Court to appoint counsel to represent him in this case 

because he cannot afford to hire counsel, the complexity of the issues, limited access to 

legal resources and limited legal knowledge, he is seriously mentally ill for which he is 

receiving psychiatric treatment, he is physically disabled, expert witnesses may be 

necessary, and he is represented by counsel in his other case. 

 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See

Ivey, 673 F.2d at 269. In proceedings in forma pauperis, the court may request an 

attorney to represent any person unable to afford one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when “exceptional 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 14 of 27
- 15 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A 

determination with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these 

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Having 

considered both elements, it does not appear at this time that exceptional circumstances 

are present, which require the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is in no different position 

than many pro se prisoner litigants. The Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. 

X. 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. 

C. Copies

 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 “Strike”

 Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff 

fails to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 15 of 27
- 16 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil 

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. 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, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in 

compliance with this Order. 

 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with 

prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

(4) Mountain Vista’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s response to its motion to 

dismiss filed in state court is granted. (Doc. 10.) 

(5) Stryker Corporation and Vasiq’s motions to dismiss are denied as moot. 

(Doc. 5, 12.) 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 16 of 27
- 17 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

(6) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. (Doc. 6.) 

 Dated this 20th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 17 of 27
Revised 5/1/2013 1

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint 

in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form. The civil rights complaint form is designed to help incarcerated

persons prepare a complaint seeking relief for a violation of their federal civil rights. These

complaints typically concern, but are not limited to, conditions of confinement. This form should

not be used to challenge your conviction or sentence. If you want to challenge a state conviction

or sentence, you should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a

person in state custody. If you want to challenge a federal conviction or sentence, you should file

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the federal court that entered the judgment.

2. The Form. Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that complaints by

incarcerated persons must be filed on the court-approved form. The form must be typed or

neatly handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. All questions

must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate space on the form. If needed, you may

attach additional pages, but no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard letter-sized paper.

You must identify which part of the complaint is being continued and number all pages. If you do

not fill out the form properly, you will be asked to submit additional or corrected information, which

may delay the processing of your action. You do not need to cite law. 

3. Your Signature. You must tell the truth and sign the form. If you make a false statement of a

material fact, you may be prosecuted for perjury.

4. The Filing and Administrative Fees. The total fees for this action are $400.00 ($350.00 filing fee

plus $50.00 administrative fee). If you are unable to immediately pay the fees, you may request

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Please review the “Information for Prisoners Seeking Leave

to Proceed with a (Non-Habeas) Civil Action in Federal Court In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915” for additional instructions.

5. Original and Judge’s Copy. You must send an original plus one copy of your complaint and of

any other documents submitted to the Court. You must send one additional copy to the Court if you

wish to have a file-stamped copy of the document returned to you. All copies must be identical to

the original. Copies may be legibly handwritten.

6. Where to File. You should file your complaint in the division where you were confined when

your rights were allegedly violated. See LRCiv 5.1(a) and 77.1(a). If you were confined in

Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma, La Paz, or Gila County, file in the Phoenix Division. If you were confined

in Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Mohave, or Yavapai County, file in the Prescott Division. If you

were confined in Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, or Greenlee County, file in the Tucson

Division. Mail the original and one copy of the complaint with the $400 filing and

administrative fees or the application to proceed in forma pauperis to:

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 18 of 27
2

Phoenix & Prescott Divisions: OR Tucson Division:

U.S. District Court Clerk U.S. District Court Clerk

U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 U.S. Courthouse, Suite 1500

401 West Washington Street, SPC 10 405 West Congress Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2119 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5010

7. Change of Address. You must immediately notify the Court and the defendants in writing of any

change in your mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in your mailing

address may result in the dismissal of your case.

8. Certificate of Service. You must furnish the defendants with a copy of any document you submit

to the Court (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis). Each

original document (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis) must

include a certificate of service on the last page of the document stating the date a copy of the

document was mailed to the defendants and the address to which it was mailed. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 5(a), (d). Any document received by the Court that does not include a certificate of service may

be stricken. A certificate of service should be in the following form:

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed

this (month, day, year) to:

Name: 

Address: 

 Attorney for Defendant(s)

 

(Signature)

9. Amended Complaint. If you need to change any of the information in the initial complaint, you

must file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be written on the court-approved

civil rights complaint form. You may file one amended complaint without leave (permission) of

Court before any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After

any defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to amend and lodge (submit) a

proposed amended complaint. LRCiv 15.1. In addition, an amended complaint may not incorporate

by reference any part of your prior complaint. LRCiv 15.1(a)(2). Any allegations or defendants

not included in the amended complaint are considered dismissed. All amended complaints are

subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; screening your amendment will take

additional processing time.

10. Exhibits. You should not submit exhibits with the complaint or amended complaint. Instead,

the relevant information should be paraphrased. You should keep the exhibits to use to support or

oppose a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial.

11. Letters and Motions. It is generally inappropriate to write a letter to any judge or the staff of

any judge. The only appropriate way to communicate with the Court is by filing a written pleading

or motion.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 19 of 27
3

12. Completing the Civil Rights Complaint Form.

HEADING:

1. Your Name. Print your name, prison or inmate number, and institutional mailing address

on the lines provided.

2. Defendants. If there are four or fewer defendants, print the name of each. If you name

more than four defendants, print the name of the first defendant on the first line, write the

words “and others” on the second line, and attach an additional page listing the names of all

of the defendants. Insert the additional page after page 1 and number it “1-A” at the bottom.

3. Jury Demand. If you want a jury trial, you must write “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED” in

the space below “CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT BY A PRISONER.” Failure to do so may

result in the loss of the right to a jury trial. A jury trial is not available if you are seeking

only injunctive relief.

Part A. JURISDICTION:

1. Nature of Suit. Mark whether you are filing the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for state, county, or city defendants; “Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents” for

federal defendants; or “other.” If you mark “other,” identify the source of that authority. 

2. Location. Identify the institution and city where the alleged violation of your rights

occurred. 

3. Defendants. Print all of the requested information about each of the defendants in the

spaces provided. If you are naming more than four defendants, you must provide the

necessary information about each additional defendant on separate pages labeled “2-A,” “2-

B,” etc., at the bottom. Insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part B. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS:

You must identify any other lawsuit you have filed in either state or federal court while you

were a prisoner. Print all of the requested information about each lawsuit in the spaces provided.

If you have filed more than three lawsuits, you must provide the necessary information about each

additional lawsuit on a separate page. Label the page(s) as “2-A,” “2-B,” etc., at the bottom of the

page and insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part C. CAUSE OF ACTION:

You must identify what rights each defendant violated. The form provides space to allege

three separate counts (one violation per count). If you are alleging more than three counts, you

must provide the necessary information about each additional count on a separate page. Number

the additional pages “5-A,” “5-B,” etc., and insert them immediately behind page 5. Remember that

you are limited to a total of fifteen additional pages.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 20 of 27
4

1. Counts. You must identify which civil right was violated. You may allege the violation

of only one civil right per count.

2. Issue Involved. Check the box that most closely identifies the issue involved in your

claim. You may check only one box per count. If you check the box marked “Other,” you

must identify the specific issue involved.

3. Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must state

the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state what each individual

defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one defendant, you must identify

which defendant did what act. You also should state the date(s) on which the act(s)

occurred, if possible.

4. Injury. State precisely how you were injured by the alleged violation of your rights. 

5. Administrative Remedies. You must exhaust any available administrative remedies

before you file a civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Consequently, you should

disclose whether you have exhausted the inmate grievance procedures or administrative

appeals for each count in your complaint. If the grievance procedures were not available for

any of your counts, fully explain why on the lines provided.

Part D. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:

Print the relief you are seeking in the space provided. 

SIGNATURE:

You must sign your name and print the date you signed the complaint. Failure to sign the

complaint will delay the processing of your action. Unless you are an attorney, you may not bring

an action on behalf of anyone but yourself.

FINAL NOTE

You should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so may result in your complaint

being stricken or dismissed. All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the

form. If you need more space, you may attach no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form

must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you attach additional pages, be sure to

identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number the pages.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 21 of 27
Revised 5/1/2013 1 550/555

Name and Prisoner/Booking Number

Place of Confinement

Mailing Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Failure to notify the Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this action.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

)

 , )

(Full Name of Plaintiff) Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. ) CASE NO. 

) (To be supplied by the Clerk)

(1) , )

(Full Name of Defendant) )

(2) , )

) CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

(3) ,) BY A PRISONER

)

(4) , ) G Original Complaint

Defendant(s). ) G First Amended Complaint

G Check if there are additional Defendants and attach page 1-A listing them. ) G Second Amended Complaint

A. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to:

G 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983

G 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

G Other: .

2. Institution/city where violation occurred: .

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 22 of 27
2

B. DEFENDANTS

1. Name of first Defendant: . The first Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

2. Name of second Defendant: . The second Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

3. Name of third Defendant: . The third Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

4. Name of fourth Defendant: . The fourth Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

If you name more than four Defendants, answer the questions listed above for each additional Defendant on a separate page.

C. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

1. Have you filed any other lawsuits while you were a prisoner? G Yes G No

2. If yes, how many lawsuits have you filed? . Describe the previous lawsuits:

a. First prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

b. Second prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

c. Third prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

If you filed more than three lawsuits, answer the questions listed above for each additional lawsuit on a separate page.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 23 of 27
3

D. CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count I. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count I. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies:

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count I? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count I to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 24 of 27
4

COUNT II

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count II. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count II. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count II? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count II to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 25 of 27
5

COUNT III

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count III. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count III. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count III? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count III to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

If you assert more than three Counts, answer the questions listed above for each additional Count on a separate page.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 26 of 27
6

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

State the relief you are seeking:

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on 

DATE SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

(Name and title of paralegal, legal assistant, or

other person who helped prepare this complaint)

(Signature of attorney, if any)

(Attorney’s address & telephone number)

ADDITIONAL PAGES

All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the form. If you need more space, you may attach

no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you

attach additional pages, be sure to identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number all pages.

Case 2:13-cv-01237-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 11/20/13 Page 27 of 27