Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00210/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00210-1/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

TERMPSREF 28

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jack Charles Conroy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robin Avalos, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-210-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jack Charles Conroy, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth

Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March

19, 2008, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. On April 15, 2008,

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has also filed a new Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a “Request for Court to Serve Subpoena, Waive Fees,” and a

“Motion to Clarify, Grant Leave for Second Amended Complaint if Needed.” 

The Court will order Defendants Avalos, Gan, Wilcox, Nurse 871, Aldrete, Drapeau,

and C.H.S. #426 to answer Counts I, II, III, VI, VIII, IX, and X of the Amended Complaint

and will dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. The Court will also

deny the pending motions.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

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). 

II. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Amended Complaint: (1) P.A. Robin

Avalos, Fourth Avenue Jail; (2) Dr. Gan, Fourth Avenue Jail; (3) Dr. Wilcox, Fourth Avenue

Jail; (4) Correctional Health Services; (5) Nurse 871, Lower Buckeye Jail; (6) Nurse Aldrete,

Lower Buckeye Jail; (7) Nurse Rowan, Lower Buckeye Jail; (8) Dr. Drapeau, Lower

Buckeye Jail; (9) C.H.S. #426, Fourth Avenue Jail; and (10) Defendant Doe, nurse or

supervisor at Fourth Avenue Jail.

Plaintiff alleges eleven grounds for relief in the Amended Complaint: (1) Plaintiff’s

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Avalos was

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Gan was deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs; (3) Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Wilcox was deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs; (4) Defendant Wilcox violated Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment rights by failing to renew Plaintiff’s prescription medications for five days in

retaliation for Plaintiff filing complaints; (5) Correctional Health Services’ policies or

customs resulted in denial or delay of medical care to Plaintiff; (6) Defendant Nurse 871

violated Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when she denied Plaintiff

medical care and refused to help him after a fall; (7) Defendant Nurse Rowan violated

Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when she was deliberately indifferent

to his serious medical needs; (8) Nurse Aldrete violated Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights when he was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs;

(9) Defendant Drapeau violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights when he took away

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Plaintiff’s wheelchair without examining Plaintiff; (10) Defendant C.H.S. #426 violated

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights when he or she denied Plaintiff psychiatric care for

two months; and (11) Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when

Defendants Aldrete, C.H.S., and Doe refused to respond to Plaintiff’s grievances and appeals.

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Count IV

In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wilcox allowed Plaintiff’s prescription

medications to expire and forced Plaintiff to suffer without those medications for five days.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Wilcox acted in retaliation to Plaintiff filing several

complaints.

To maintain a claim under the Eighth Amendment based on prison medical treatment,

a prisoner must show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both

know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994). 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. Id.

This subjective approach focuses upon the mental attitude of the defendant. Id. at 839. 

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1060 (9th Cir. 2004). In the medical context, deliberate indifference may be shown by (1) a

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and

(2) harm caused by the indifference. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)

(citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). The harm need not be substantial. Id. (citing Estelle, 429

U.S. at 104). 

Medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a violation. Toguchi,

391 F.3d at 1060. Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a condition does not violate the

Eighth Amendment. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057. Also, an inadvertent failure to provide

adequate medical care alone does not rise to the Eighth Amendment level. Jett, 429 F.3d at

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

1096. 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Wilcox failed to timely renew his prescriptions

are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment medical claim because Plaintiff’s allegations

demonstrate that Defendant Wilcox was at most negligent in failing to renew Plaintiff’s

prescriptions. Plaintiff offers no facts suggesting that the failure to re-order prescriptions was

anything more than oversight. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Wilcox acted in retaliation

against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s numerous complaints is conclusory at best and not

sufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations. Although pro se pleadings are liberally

construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not

support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d

266 (9th Cir. 1982); Rhodes v. Robinson, 612 F.2d 766, 772 (3d Cir. 1979). The Court will

dismiss Count IV for failure to state a claim.

B. Count V

In Count V, Plaintiff claims that policies of Correctional Health Services (CHS)

resulted in the denial or delay of his medical care. Municipalities and other local governing

bodies are included among those “persons” who may be sued under § 1983. Monell v.

Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Because

Maricopa County CHS is not a municipal corporation, a local governing body or a private

corporation, it is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Maricopa County is

responsible for providing medical care to county jail inmates. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-

291(A). Any actions against a county policy must be brought against the county itself and

not against an administrative subdivision of the county; thus, Maricopa County CHS is an

improper defendant and Count V will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

C. Count VII

In Count VII, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Rowan refused to provide him with a

wheelchair because Plaintiff’s medical records state that Plaintiff was cleared to walk.

Plaintiff claims that she then directed a detention officer to take Plaintiff away and that after

Plaintiff was outside of the psych unit, he was provided with a wheelchair. 

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

These allegations are not sufficient to allege deliberate indifference. Plaintiff states

that Defendant Rowan denied Plaintiff a wheelchair because his medical records stated he

was cleared to walk; Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Rowan had some other

knowledge that would lead her to believe a wheelchair was necessary. Moreover, the

incident Plaintiff describes, though allegedly painful for Plaintiff, was brief and Plaintiff

himself states that shortly after the incident, he was provided with a wheelchair. Count VII

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

D. Count XI

In Count XI, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Aldrete, CHS, and Doe denied him

access to the courts when they failed to respond to Plaintiff’s grievances or appeals.

An inmate has no free-standing constitutional right to a grievance process. In Mann

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit held that a prisoner does not

have a protected liberty interest in prison grievance procedures. Other circuits have held

similarly. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.1996); Adams v. Rice, 40

F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991). Without a

liberty interest, Plaintiff has no procedural due process rights at stake. Accordingly,

Defendants’ failure to follow grievance procedures by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s

grievances or appeals does not give rise to a due process a claim. 

Plaintiff also fails to state an access to the courts claim. To establish that he was

denied meaningful access to the courts, a plaintiff must submit evidence showing that he

suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the defendants’ actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343 (1996). An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or

existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id.

at 348. To show actual injury with respect to contemplated litigation, the plaintiff must

demonstrate that the conduct of the defendants prevented him from bringing to court a

nonfrivolous claim that he wished to present. Id. at 352-53. That nonfrivolous claim must

be a direct or collateral attack on the inmate’s sentence, or a challenge to the conditions of

his confinement. Id. at 355. “Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 5 of 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 - 6 -

incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Id.

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff has not alleged that he was prevented from bringing his

claims to court as a result of Defendants’ actions.

Count XI will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

In Count I, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Avalos repeatedly denied medical care to

Plaintiff and ignored Plaintiff’s complaints that pain in his left leg was becoming increasingly

worse. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Avalos denied him a wheelchair and discontinued

Plaintiff’s pain medication, despite Plaintiff’s complaints. Plaintiff later discovered he had

an infection in his bone that was aggravated by a lack of treatment.

In Count II, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Gan was deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff’s medical needs when he examined Plaintiff’s leg with the intent to cause Plaintiff

pain and failed to provide Plaintiff with pain medication.

In Count III, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Wilcox examined Plaintiff with the intent

to cause Plaintiff pain, accused Plaintiff of faking his medical symptoms, and prevented

Plaintiff from receiving medical care for two months.

In Count VI, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nurse 871 refused to assist Plaintiff after

Plaintiff fell and landed on his injured leg. Plaintiff states that Defendant Nurse 871 “threw

[his] mattress on the floor. Told me I could crawl to my mattress and then she walked away.”

Plaintiff claims this aggravated his existing injury.

In Count VIII, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Aldrete, knowing Plaintiff was in pain,

assigned Plaintiff to the cell farthest from the legal phones and showers, even though an

empty cell was available next to the showers. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Aldrete

ignored Plaintiff’s medical requests.

In Count IX, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Drapeau took Plaintiff’s wheelchair away

without examining Plaintiff resulting in Plaintiff experiencing several painful falls.

In Count X, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant C.H.S. #426 denied Plaintiff psychiatric

care for two months.

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 6 of 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 - 7 -

Liberally construed, these allegations state a claim and the Court will require an

answer to Counts I, II, III, VI, VIII, IX, and X.

V. Motions

On March 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Because Plaintiff has already been granted in forma pauperis status, the Court will deny the

new Application as moot.

On March 21, 2008, Plaintiff also filed a “Request for Court to Serve Subpoena Waive

Fees,” in which he asks that the Court issue subpoenas for Plaintiff to obtain medical records.

Because Defendants have not yet been served in this action, any discovery related matters

(such as obtaining relevant medical records) are premature. After Defendants have filed an

answer, the Court will issue a discovery schedule setting deadlines for the parties to submit

and respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff’s Request will be denied at this time.

On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Clarify, Grant Leave for Second

Amended Complaint if Needed,” in which he asks that the Court grant him leave to file a

second amended complaint if the Amended Complaint is deficient. Because the Court will

serve the Amended Complaint, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion as moot. 

VI. Warnings

A. Release

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

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

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

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

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

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

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

action.

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 7 of 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 - 8 -

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) Counts IV, V, VII, and XI of the Amended Complaint and Defendants

Correctional Health Services, Rowan, and Doe are dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Defendants Avalos, Gan, Wilcox, Nurse 871, Aldrete, Drapeau, and C.H.S.

#426 must answer Counts I, II, III, VI, VIII, IX, and X of the Amended Complaint.

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

Complaint (Doc. #9), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Avalos, Gan, Wilcox, Nurse 871, Aldrete, Drapeau, and C.H.S. #426.

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

within 20 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 8 of 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 - 9 -

(6) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Amended

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marshal must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, 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, 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.

(8) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Amended

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

Plaintiff.

(9) Defendants must answer the 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.

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

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 9 of 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 - 10 -

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.

(11) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

(12) Plaintiff’s March 21, 2008 Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #6) is denied as moot.

(13) Plaintiff’s March 21, 2008 “Request for Court to Serve Subpoena Waive Fees”

(Doc. #7) is denied.

(14) Plaintiff’s April 11, 2008 “Motion to Clarify, Grant Leave for Second

Amended Complaint if Needed” (Doc. #8) is denied.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00210-MHM Document 10 Filed 05/05/08 Page 10 of 10