Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02210/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02210-3/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 

Arron Eugene Mowry, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Balashi (M.D.), et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2210-PHX-SMM (MEA) 

 O R D E R 

 Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Steinhauser. 

(Doc. 48.) 

I. Background 

On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 

alleging that he was denied constitutionally adequate medical treatment when he was 

confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail. Plaintiff’s Complaint was 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 12.) 

 On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint stated a claim and directed Defendant Balashi to answer. 

(Doc. 13.) On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 31) seeking to voluntarily 

dismiss Balashi as a Defendant, a motion (Doc. 32) seeking leave to amend his complaint 

because he had named the wrong person as a defendant, and a motion (Doc. 33) seeking 

Case 2:13-cv-02210-SMM-MEA Document 54 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

leave to “join” the proper parties. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff lodged a proposed Second 

Amended Complaint (“SAC”) identifying Dr. Steinhauser as the person he now believes 

was responsible for his harm. In a July 7, 2014 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motions, and gave leave to file the proposed SAC, effectively substituting Dr. 

Steinhauser for Dr. Balashi as the Defendant in this matter, and ordered service on 

Defendant Steinhauser. (Doc. 42.) In a subsequent Order, the Court dismissed Balashi 

from this action. (Doc. 46.) 

 Plaintiff’s SAC is nearly identical to his First Amended Complaint except for the 

substitution of Dr. Steinhauser for Dr. Balashi. In his SAC (Doc. 42), Plaintiff alleges 

that he had a torn rotator cuff, as evidenced by x-rays ordered from Phoenix Baptist 

Hospital, Defendant Steinhauser’s physical examinations, and an orthopedic doctor’s 

consultation. Steinhauser examined Plaintiff on April 24, 2012 and prescribed Elavil for 

Plaintiff’s pain, even though Elavil is an antidepressant and not a pain reliever. Plaintiff 

had submitted three Health Needs Requests (“HNRs”) complaining about his injury and 

pain before that appointment and submitted six more HNRs after his appointment 

complaining that his pain was getting worse and causing more injury. Different nurses 

processed and signed those HNRs and forwarded them to Steinhauser. 

 Plaintiff submitted a grievance on May 15, 2012, and a grievance appeal on May 

22, 2012, complaining that he was in serious pain, that he was not receiving proper 

medical care, and that he needed immediate treatment. The responses to his grievance 

and appeal “were attempts to use the medication gabapentin that [Plaintiff] was getting 

through the psych Doctor for [his] mental disorder (bipolar, anxiety, depression) as an 

excuse & as a means of pain relief.” (Doc. 43 at 5.) Plaintiff’s grievance was dismissed 

with an explanation that Plaintiff was receiving Gabapentin for pain relief even though 

Steinhauser had stated that Plaintiff “only wanted narcotics” and that narcotics and 

Gabapentin were not indicated for degenerative arthritic pain and that Steinhauser would 

not prescribe them to Plaintiff. Instead, Steinhauser prescribed Elavil “because she 

Case 2:13-cv-02210-SMM-MEA Document 54 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

thought [Plaintiff] was malingering or faking [his] injury & pain to get narcotics from 

her.” (Id.) 

 After about five weeks, Plaintiff began receiving Tramadol for his pain, but it was 

ineffective, even when the dosage was increased. Because of the pain, Plaintiff could not 

perform physical therapy to strengthen the muscles surrounding the injury and the 

separation in his shoulder became worse and would not heal, which caused more pain and 

suffering and a deformity in Plaintiff’s shoulder. Between May 20, 2012 and July 9, 

2012, Plaintiff submitted 17 HNRs “explaining the problem.” (Doc. 43 at 7.) On July 

25, 2012, Plaintiff saw an orthopedic doctor and was given an injection of Turadol, but it 

was “not fully effective.” (Id.) At the end of July, Plaintiff was transferred to the 

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, where he continued seeking treatment and 

requesting pain relief. Plaintiff was given a prescription for Vicodin in addition to the 

Tramadol. The Vicodin helped enough to allow Plaintiff to do physical therapy. Because 

of the delay in medical care, Plaintiff was subjected to a “significant amount of pain and 

suffering for an unnecessarily long period of time,” which caused permanent damage and 

a deformity in his shoulder. Plaintiff’s injury healed abnormally and left him slightly 

disfigured, with his left arm hanging a little lower than his right arm, and he still has 

problems. 

II. Legal Standard 

 On a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), all 

allegations of material fact are assumed to be true and construed in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 

2009). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on “the lack of a cognizable legal 

theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To avoid 

dismissal, a complaint need contain only “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The 

principle that a court accepts as true all of the allegations in a complaint does not apply to 

Case 2:13-cv-02210-SMM-MEA Document 54 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

legal conclusions or conclusory factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 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 claim has facial plausibility 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. “The plausibility standard is not 

akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. To show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, the 

complaint must permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct. 

Id. 

 A claim must be stated clearly enough to provide each defendant fair opportunity 

to frame a responsive pleading. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996). 

“Something labeled a complaint . . ., yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to 

whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a 

complaint.” Id. at 1180. 

III. Analysis 

 Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations, at most, show a difference of 

opinion regarding how his pain should be treated, or possibly negligence, and do not 

amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. (Doc. 48 at 3-5.) 

 Plaintiff alleges that he was in significant pain due to a shoulder injury, that 

Defendant was aware of his pain from his HNRs and examining him, and that Defendant 

failed to provide adequate pain relief for at least five weeks. As a result, Plaintiff alleges 

that he was unable to do physical therapy, which resulted in permanent damage and 

disfigurement. These facts, if true, would entitle Plaintiff to relief. 

 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 48.) All other matters must remain referred to the Magistrate 

Judge for disposition as appropriate. 

Case 2:13-cv-02210-SMM-MEA Document 54 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

 (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48) is denied. 

 (3) Defendant Steinhauser must file an Answer to the SAC within 10 days of 

this Order. 

 DATED this 1st day of April, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02210-SMM-MEA Document 54 Filed 04/02/15 Page 5 of 5