Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00440/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00440-3/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

Glenn Cornell Worley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Correctional Medical Services, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-440 PHX RCB (MEA)

O R D E R

On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Cornell Worley, who is confined in the Arizona

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

§ 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April 23, 2012 Order, the

Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had

failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that

cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). In a July 30,

2012 Order, the Court ordered Defendant Fredrickson to answer Count I of the First

Amended Complaint and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice.

On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and attached a

proposed Second Amended Complaint to the Motion. Plaintiff also filed, on the same date,

a “Notice re: Complaint for Negligence” (Doc. 14).

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 17 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion

for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered

evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already

thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

1983)).

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the Order of dismissal, and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its dismissal

of claims in the July 30th screening Order. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion

for Reconsideration.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks leave to file a second amended complaint, the Court

will also deny the Motion. Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint does not

contain all of Plaintiff’s claims for relief. Specifically, the dental claim which the Court sent

forward in the July 30, 2012 Order is not included and it is unclear whether Plaintiff intends

to abandon this claim. Further, the only Defendant named in the proposed Second Amended

Complaint is the State of Arizona. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States, a state or state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent.

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of

section 1983.” Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991)

(citation omitted). Accordingly, the State of Arizona is not a proper defendant.

To the extent that Plaintiff intends his September 27, 2012 Notice to add a claim for

medical negligence to this action, the Court will deny the Notice. Plaintiff states that he

intends to bring his claims under the Eighth Amendment. To state an Eighth Amendment

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

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 17 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). “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 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 Corrections, 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). Accordingly,

negligent acts do not support an Eighth Amendment medical claim.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn with respect to only the

September 27, 2012 Motion for Reconsideration and Notice. All other matters will remain

with the Magistrate Judge.

(2) Plaintiff’s September 27, 2012 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 13) and

Notice (Doc. 14) are denied.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 17 Filed 11/21/12 Page 3 of 3