Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04768/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04768-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Erik Estrada Leal,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-04768 PHX DLR (CDB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES: 

I. Background

In an order (ECF No. 8) entered October 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis and dismissed Count One of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) and Defendants Ryan, Centurion of Arizona 

LLC, Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) Officers Steven Bell and Diane 

Bohuszewicz, Arizona State Prison Complex (“ASPC”)-Florence Deputy Warden Patrick 

O’Brien, ASPC-Florence Warden Kevin Curran, “Regional Director” Tara Diaz, “Division 

Director” Carson McWilliams, Corizon Incorporated, “Appeals Officers” Roberto Kepney 

and Courtney Glynn, Doctors Rodney Stewart and David Robertson, “RHA” Adam 

Perkins; “PA” Richard Pratt,” Nurse Theresa Starling, an unidentified “Executive Director 

[of the] Arizona Medical Board,” and an unidentified “Executive Director [of the] Arizona 

Nursing Board. (ECF No. 8). The Court ordered Defendant “Provider” Dorothy Igwe to 

answer Count Two of the Amended Complaint. (Id.). Defendant Igwe has been served and 

has answered the Amended Complaint.

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 8
- 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

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend or correct his Amended Complaint. 

(ECF No. 10). Plaintiff has lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13-

1). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint names the defendants previously dismissed 

from this matter and restates the claims for relief presented in the Amended Complaint 

which were previously dismissed without prejudice.

II. Standard for granting or denying a motion to amend

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff should 

be given leave to amend his complaint when justice so requires. Granting or denying leave 

to amend is a matter committed to the Court’s discretion. Hartmann v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), requires the screening 

of prisoner complaints and the dismissal of allegations that fail to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted prior to ordering service of an amended complaint on the defendants. 

See, e.g., O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Futility of amendment is 

sufficient to justify denial of a motion for leave to amend. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 

627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). A proposed amended complaint is futile if, accepting 

all of the facts alleged as true, it would be immediately “subject to dismissal” for failure to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998); 

Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010).

The Court is obliged to liberally construe an incarcerated pro se plaintiff’s complaint. See, 

e.g., Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

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). Although Rule 8 

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the 

defendant-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. Although pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, “a 

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 8
- 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

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Id., quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007). A claim is plausible only “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. Therefore, although a plaintiff’s specific factual allegations 

may be consistent with a constitutional claim, the reviewing court must assess whether 

there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

B. Governing law regarding § 1983 claims

To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) an act by the named 

defendant; (2) taken under color of state law; (3) which deprived the plaintiff of a federal 

right; and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 

(9th Cir. 2005). Additionally, 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).

III. Analysis of Plaintiff’s proposed amendments

A. Count I

Count I of the lodged Second Amended Complaint asserts Plaintiff was denied his 

First Amendment right to “petition.” (ECF No. 13-1 at 5). Count I of the lodged Second 

Amended Complaint is identical to Count I of the Amended Complaint. The Court’s 

screening order at ECF No. 8 characterized Count I as a First Amendment right-to-petition 

claim,

alleg[ing] that on June 25, 2019, [Plaintiff] filed a grievance but Defendant 

Bell “fail[ed] to act on it.” Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Bell and 

Bohuszewicz “handle grievances” in his prison unit, but “have the well 

documented history of not responding to grievances and informals.” Plaintiff

alleges that “more than 100” inmates have complained about Bell and 

Bohuszewicz to O’Brien, Curran, Diaz, McWilliams, Kepney, Glynn, and 

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 8
- 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

Ryan, but these Defendants have “refused to discipline” Bell and 

Bohuszewicz.

(ECF No. 8 at 3). The Court concluded Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, 

and dismissed this count of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8 at 6). 

Because Plaintiff’s claims and allegations in Count I of the Second Amended 

Complaint are identical to those stated in Count I of the Amended Complaint, which the 

Court found must be dismissed, his motion to amend should be denied with regard to Count 

I of the Second Amended Complaint. 

B. Count II

Count II of the lodged Second Amended Complaint states a claim for violation of 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, i.e., that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (ECF No. 13-1 at 7-16). In his lodged Second Amended 

Complaint Plaintiff makes the same allegations presented in his Amended Complaint. The 

Court concluded Plaintiff had failed to state a claim against all Defendants except 

Defendant Igwe:

1. Stewart and Perkins

Plaintiff alleges that Stewart and Perkins “delayed the surgery.” 

Plaintiff does not describe how or why they “delayed the surgery,” or for 

how long it was delayed. Accordingly, without additional information, 

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support that Stewart and Perkins have 

been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, and they will thus

be dismissed.

2. Starling

Plaintiff alleges that Starling “refused to see [him] ... unless 

[Plaintiff] paid $4.00.” Plaintiff does not, however, describe what Starling 

was supposedly seeing Plaintiff about, or when any of this occurred. 

Accordingly, without additional information, Plaintiff has failed to allege 

facts sufficient to support that Starling has been deliberately indifferent to 

Plaintiff’s medical needs, and Starling will thus be dismissed. 

3. Centurion and Corizon

Plaintiff alleges that Centurion has “hired those Corizon employees 

that have been killing and denying [inmates] treatment,” namely Starling, 

Igwe, and Stewart. However, Plaintiff does not allege that either Centurion 

or Corizon were aware of any of Starling, Igwe, or Stewart’s alleged failures 

to treat Plaintiff, or that either Corizon or Centurion established any policies, 

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 4 of 8
- 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

practices, or customs that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

has failed to state a claim against Centurion and Corizon, and they will thus 

be dismissed.

4. Perkins, Pratt, Robertson, Bell, Bohuszewicz, O’Brien, and Curran

Plaintiff alleges that Perkins has “been using the grievance process” 

to “cover up” for “these persons”; that Pratt and Robertson have “refused to 

lodge complaints with professional licensing bodies against Igwe, Stewart, 

[and] Starling”; and that Bell, Bohuszewicz, O’Brien, Curran, and Perkins 

“refuse t[o] create the necessary documentation against Igwe, Stewart, [and] 

Starling.”

As to Perkins, Plaintiff does not describe what Perkins has been 

“cover[ing] up,” or how he has been doing so. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim against Perkins in Count Two, and Perkins will thus be 

dismissed.

As to Pratt and Robertson, Plaintiff does not explain what any such 

complaints have to do with his medical treatment, or how it supports that 

either Pratt or Robertson have been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s 

medical needs. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Pratt 

and Robertson, and they will thus be dismissed.

As to Bell, Bohuszewicz, O’Brien, and Curran, Plaintiff does not 

explain what “documentation” they have refused to create, or how it relates 

to his medical issues.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Bell, 

Bohuszewicz, O’Brien, and Curran in Count Two, and they will thus be 

dismissed.

5. Ryan

Plaintiff’s only mention of Ryan in Count Two is that Bell, 

Bohuszewicz, O’Brien, and Curran failed to create some “documentation” in 

order to “protect” Ryan. These allegations do not support that Ryan was even 

aware of, much less indifferent to, Plaintiff’s medical needs. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Ryan, and Ryan will thus be 

dismissed.

6. Executive Directors

Plaintiff alleges that the unnamed Executive Directors “refuse to 

properly investigate complaints against nurses and doctors.” Again, Plaintiff 

fails to explain how any of these “complaints” are related to his medical 

treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the 

unnamed Executive Directors, and they will thus be dismissed.

(ECF No. 8 at 7-9). 

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 5 of 8
- 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

In his lodged Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff adds the following allegations:

27. Stewart and Perkins delayed my surgery for no medical reasons 

but, because Corizon delays surgery for inmates.

28. When I was in pain and could not see I had to see the nurse. 

Starling was the nurse on duty. She refused to see me and send me back. Her 

refusal aggravated my condition and resulted in my having to be rushed to 

the hospital later. 

29. Centurion, Corizon when hiring Starling, Igwe, Stewart did not 

review the complaints against them for denying/delaying health care, for 

causing inmate deaths, for causing permanent physical/medical injury. Had 

they done the due diligence they would not have hired them.

30. As [illegible] Perkins has received hundreds of complaints of 

deaths, permanent physical injury, permanent medical injury inmates have 

suffered, because of Igwe, Starling, Stewart delaying/denying care. He 

covered this up.

31. Pratt and Robertson, in their capacities as monitors/directors have 

received complaints that Stewart, Igwe, Starling have been delaying/denying 

care causing inmates death, permanent physical/medical injury they have 

refused to, though they have the authority to, to direct corrective action be 

taken.

32. Per policy whenever inmates are denied medical treatment 

Bohuszewicz, Bell, O’Brien, Curran, Perkins are supposed to write incident 

reports and notify the monitors. This is to ensure corrective action is taken. 

As they have refused to generate such documents, Igwe, Stewart, Starling 

have continued with the practice. They refuse to generate documents because 

the documents are evidence of inmates not getting proper care.

33. On October 14, 2019, I submitted an HNR because the back of my 

eye was hurting so bad. On this same day I was seen by the nurse and she 

referred me to Igwe. Igwe saw me and she said I was okay so she wanted to 

[give] me Tylenol.

34. On October 17, 2019, I was sent to the specialist to be seen by Dr. 

Healer in charge of this situation. He saw me and told me the back of my eye 

was bleeding.

35. Dr. Healer administer me an injection in my eye to stop the 

bleeding and he send me back to east unit.

36. On October 30, 2019, I was seen by the optometrist Dr. Bray. He 

didn’t like what he saw in my eye. He detected that it was an inflamed nerve 

behind my eye, very close to the brain, that it was bleeding.

37. Dr. Bray put eye drops in my eye and about 10 minutes later very 

upset called Igwe so she could see my eye. He said what he was seen was 

very dangerous. So they rushed me to the hospital this same day (October 30, 

2019). 

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 6 of 8
- 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

38. When they saw me at the hospital they asked me: What do you 

want us to do for you? According to them it wasn’t very clear in the 

information they had about my situation.

39. They called Dr. Healer, they asked him what did he want them to 

do for Estrada (me). They run me through a scanner and they order me to be 

seen by Dr. Healer the next day and I was sent back to the unit.

40. On October 31, 2019, in the morning my eye was hurting so bad 

and about to 10 a.m. I was called to the health unit and Igwe gave me 

Tylenol 3 and was sent back to my hut (my living area).

41. On this same day October 31, 2019 about 6:30 p.m. I fell down in 

my living area rushed to health services. The nurse I believe called Igwe and 

she refused for me to be taken to the hospital. Sergeant Frances was there at 

the moment alone with CI II B. Harper.

42. I believe they called somebody else and eventually I was rushed 

to the hospital. They saw me and they said I had a very bad brain 

inflammation and that as Igwe and Corizon did not follow through, by having 

me seen by the original surgeon, I very likely may have a brain hemorrhage. 

Centurion does the same thing. 

43. I am in unbearable pain. I feel my head is burning and I need help. 

(ECF No. 13-1 at 12-17). 

The additional “facts” supplied in the lodged Second Amended Complaint with 

regard to Count II do not cure the deficiencies noted in the screening order with regard to 

the Defendants other than Defendant Igwe. However, the additional facts may further 

support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Igwe was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s 

serious medical needs in violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No 10 be denied, except 

insofar as Plaintiff seeks to add the factual allegations in paragraphs 33 through 43 as 

supporting his claim against Defendant Igwe.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 7 of 8
- 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

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within 

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 7th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-04768-DLR-CDB Document 19 Filed 01/07/20 Page 8 of 8