Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01515/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01515-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donna Marie Biscoe,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Health Incorporated,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-01515-PHX-ROS (CDB)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Donna Marie Biscoe requests leave to amend her complaint. Magistrate 

Judge Camille D. Bibles recommends that request be denied. (Doc. 31). Because 

Plaintiff’s motion and proposed amended complaint do not contain sufficient facts 

supporting the claims against the defendants she wishes to add, the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation will be accepted and the request to amend the complaint will be denied.

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11). As 

explained in the Court’s subsequent screening order, that complaint contained a single 

count against Corizon Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections Director 

Charles L. Ryan, and Nurse Practitioner Patricia Davis. Plaintiff’s allegations focused on 

the failure to diagnose and treat trichomoniasis, a sexually transmitted infection. The Court 

interpreted Plaintiff as basing her claim against Corizon on alleged “policies, decisions, 

and contract restrictions and limitations” that led to Corizon not “test[ing] inmates for 

trichomoniasis during certain years.” (Doc. 12 at 4). As for Defendant Ryan, Plaintiff 

alleged he was aware of Corizon’s policies and took no action. And as for Defendant 

Case 2:19-cv-01515-ROS-CDB Document 38 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

Davis, she allegedly provided inadequate care for Plaintiff’s medical complaints. The 

Court determined Plaintiff had stated a claim against Corizon based on its alleged policy 

of not testing but dismissed Ryan and Davis. (Doc. 12 at 4, 6).

Corizon answered the complaint and Magistrate Judge Bibles entered a Scheduling 

Order. (Doc. 16). According to the Scheduling Order, the parties had until December 6, 

2019, to amend the pleadings. (Doc. 16). On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff moved to amend 

her complaint “to add Patricia Davis as a defendant . . . for her actions (inactions) in the 

treatment of plaintiff’s serious medical needs.” (Doc. 23 at 2-3). Plaintiff’s motion, 

however, did not include a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint indicating 

how it differed from the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Bibles 

ordered Plaintiff to submit such a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint no 

later than December 27, 2019. (Doc. 26).

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a new motion to amend along with a proposed 

Second Amended Complaint indicating the changes Plaintiff wished to make. Unlike the 

previous motion filed on December 2, however, the December 26 motion did not seek to 

add only Davis. Instead, the December 26 motion sought to add Davis and eight other 

individuals as defendants. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff explained that she wished to pursue a claim 

against Davis and the other individuals under the “Federal Tort Claims Act — Eighth 

Amendment.” (Doc. 28-1 at 4). Corizon opposed the motion to amend, arguing it differed 

substantially from the motion filed on December 2 and, because the new motion was not 

filed until December 26, it was untimely under the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 29). On 

February 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Bibles issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) regarding the December 26 motion to amend.

The R&R treats the December 26 motion as timely but recommends the Court deny 

the motion on its merits. The R&R explains the proposed Second Amended Complaint

only alleges “Davis and the newly-named individuals defendants were negligent and 

committed malpractice with regarding to Plaintiff’s medical treatment.” (Doc. 31 at 8). 

Because the standard for asserting a claim under the Eighth Amendment requires the facts 

Case 2:19-cv-01515-ROS-CDB Document 38 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

point to more than negligence, the R&R concludes it would be futile to allow the 

amendment. 

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (Doc. 32). According to Plaintiff, the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint seeks to add “all parties that participated in 

depriving [Plaintiff] of adequate medical treatment and the treatment of her serious medical 

need.” (Doc. 32 at 3). Plaintiff’s objections, however, do not explain how the facts in the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint are sufficient to support a claim against each of the 

newly identified individuals.

As explained in the Court’s Screening Order, “[n]ot every claim by a prisoner 

relating to inadequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” 

(Doc. 12 at 5). To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing a defendant 

acted with “deliberate indifference.” That is a “high legal standard” that requires a 

defendant do more than merely act with “negligence or lack of ordinary due care.” (Doc. 

12 at 5). Beyond alleging facts to meet this high standard, a plaintiff must also allege the 

“specific facts linking each defendant to [the claimed] violation.” Ortez v. Washington 

Cty., State of Or., 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996). In other words, a plaintiff must allege 

the specific acts or inactions by each defendant that caused a violation of her rights.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient factual 

allegations regarding the actions or inaction of each individual defendant Plaintiff wishes 

to add. Plaintiff does allege some facts regarding her interactions with Defendant Davis 

but those facts show only negligence or malpractice. As for the eight other individuals, 

there are no meaningful allegations regarding what each individual did or failed to do. 

Plaintiff does allege that the various individuals “never recommended that any further 

testing for other diseases be conducted, done on [her].” (Doc. 28 at 6). But without any 

elaboration of the nature of Plaintiff’s interactions with these individuals, there is no basis 

to conclude the individuals had an obligation to make such recommendations. Therefore, 

Plaintiff has not stated plausible claims against the individuals and her proposed 

Case 2:19-cv-01515-ROS-CDB Document 38 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

amendment would be futile.1

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED. The 

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 27) is DENIED.

Dated this 8th day of May, 2020.

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

1 The R&R also correctly observes that Plaintiff describes her proposed claim against the 

individuals as brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Those individuals, 

however, are not alleged to be federal employees. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff is 

attempting to amend to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, such an amendment 

would be futile.

Case 2:19-cv-01515-ROS-CDB Document 38 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 4