Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-01860/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-01860-3/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

SKC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert F. Lindley, Jr.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Corizon Health, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 18-01860-PHX-DGC (JFM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s “Expedited Motion to Alter the 

Judgement Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59(e)” (Doc. 138). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that

part of the Court’s April 9, 2020 Order granting summary judgment to Defendant Dr. Itoro

Elijah on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims and requests that Dr. Elijah 

be re-instated as a Defendant in this action. The Court will deny the Motion.

I. Legal Standard

Rule 59(e) governs motions “to alter or amend a judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

A “judgment” is defined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as “any order from which 

an appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. “Thus, the word ‘judgment’ encompasses final

judgments and appealable interlocutory orders.” Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrs., 869 

F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989). 

“A Rule 59(e) motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented 

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change 

in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.2003) 

Case 2:18-cv-01860-DGC Document 142 Filed 04/29/20 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

(quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). Such 

motions are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised 

in their original briefs. See LRCiv 7.2(g); Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 

1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the 

court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 

32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon 

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims arise from Defendants Corizon 

Health (“Corizon”), Utilization Management Team (UMT) Director Ayodeji Ladele, and 

Dr. Elijah’s alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs associated 

with a brain cyst and shunt. (Doc. 7.) In its April 9, 2020 Order, the Court granted 

summary judgment to Defendants Ladele and Dr. Elijah and denied summary judgment to

Corizon. (Doc. 135.) The Order dismissed Defendants Ladele and Dr. Elijah with 

prejudice and is therefore final and appealable as to these Defendants. Plaintiff argues that 

the Court should reinstate Dr. Elijah because newly discovered evidence related to his 

sinusitis and eye constriction shows that she was deliberately indifferent to his serious 

medical needs. (Doc. 138 at 1.)1

A. Sinusitis

Plaintiff previously argued in response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment that Dr. Elijah was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in part 

because she failed to discuss or respond to the results of his December 8, 2016 MRI, 

showing that, in addition to his known arachnoid cyst, he had sinusitis and a new sinus 

mucous retention cyst. (Doc. 124 at 10; Doc. 120-1 at 3.) The MRI results specifically 

1 To the extent Plaintiff also inserts into his Motion various arguments which he 

could have made earlier in response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or 

which merely ask the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought,” the Court will 

not address these additional arguments. See LRCiv 7.2(g); Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. 

Supp. at 1351; Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d at 1116.

Case 2:18-cv-01860-DGC Document 142 Filed 04/29/20 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

noted that Plaintiff had “[m]oderate ethmoid and mild maxillary sinusitis” and a new 

“sphenoid sinus mucous retention cyst.” (See Doc. 138 at 10.) 

The Court found on summary judgment that Defendants had produced sufficient 

evidence to show that Dr. Elijah regularly responded to and did not deliberately disregard 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs associated with his arachnoid cyst and shunt, and that 

“Plaintiff fail[ed] to present any medical evidence that his sinusitis and sinus mucous 

retention cyst were serious medical needs that required additional treatment at the time or 

that he suffered any harm due to Dr. Elijah’s alleged failure to separately address these 

issues.” (Doc. 135 at 13−14) 

Plaintiff now produces a January 7, 2020 Consultation Report which shows that 

outside provider J. Osborne diagnosed him with chronic sinusitis and nasal polyps and 

recommended sinus surgery. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff argues that this evidence shows that Dr. 

Elijah was deliberately indifferent when she ignored the sphenoid mucus cyst shown on 

his December 8, 2016 MRI. (Id. at 1−3.) 

The Court is not persuaded. Although the January 20, 2020 Consultation Report 

may show that Plaintiff now has a serious medical need requiring sinus surgery, this 

showing is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Elijah 

both knew of and deliberately disregarded serious medical needs of Plaintiff when she 

ordered and presumably became aware of Plaintiff’s December 8, 2016 MRI. See Farmer 

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (an official shows deliberate indifference when she 

“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”). There is simply 

no evidence that Plaintiff’s sinusitis—which the December 2016 MRI showed was mild to 

moderate—or his mucous retention cyst required treatment more than three years prior to 

the evidence Plaintiff now provides. There is also no medical evidence, and Plaintiff 

provides no affidavit testimony, regarding what prompted the outside consult or what 

symptoms and findings Osborn relied on to determine that Plaintiff had chronic sinusitis 

and nasal polyps and needed surgery, from which a reasonable jury could infer that Plaintiff 

had these same conditions and need in 2016. Plaintiff therefore fails to create a triable 

Case 2:18-cv-01860-DGC Document 142 Filed 04/29/20 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

issue of fact that Dr. Elijah was both “aware of facts from which the inference could be 

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and [s]he [drew] the inference.” 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. There is also no evidence that Plaintiff suffered serious harm 

due to Dr. Elijah’s alleged failures to properly treat his mild to moderate sinusitis or mucous 

retention cyst during the period from late-2016 to mid-2017 when Plaintiff was in her care. 

B. Eye/Vision Complaints

Plaintiff also argues that newly available evidence shows that Dr. Elijah was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs related to his eye pressure and vision 

issues because she failed to order “Hall Pike” testing, as part of the alternative treatment 

plan (ATP) issued by the UMT in March 2018. (Doc. 138 at 2.)2 Plaintiff produces reports 

of outside ophthalmology exams he received from Dr. Warren H. Heller on September 4 

and December 30, 2019, which he believes met “the ‘Hall Pike’ test standard.” (Id. at 4, 

13−14.) Dr. Heller found that Plaintiff had a “nonspecific constriction” of both eyes and 

recommended two-month and three-month follow ups (respectively) to “see if there is any 

change” and − when there was no change − for a neurologist to determine whether any 

more investigation or tests should be done. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that this evidence shows 

that Dr. Elijah should have “carried out the U.M.T. for a field vision test, but NEVER did,” 

which is “just one more example of deliberate indifference.” (Id. at 4.)

Aside from being inconclusive as to the cause or seriousness of Plaintiff’s 

“nonspecific constriction” of both eyes, Dr. Heller’s reports provide no new evidence 

showing that Dr. Elijah was deliberately indifferent to any known serious eye or vision 

issues. Even assuming that the “Hall Pike” tests recommended in the March 2018 ATP

were provided for the first time as part of Dr. Heller’s exams more than a year and a half 

later, there is no evidence Dr. Elijah was aware of this ATP, was responsible for conducting 

or scheduling the Hall Pike test, or had any ongoing involvement in Plaintiff’s medical care 

2 Defendants did not provide any evidence on summary judgment regarding “Hall 

Pike” testing, but available information online shows that it is a method used for testing 

vertigo. See https://www.webmd.com/brain/dix-hallpike-test-vertigo (last visited April 20, 

2020). 

Case 2:18-cv-01860-DGC Document 142 Filed 04/29/20 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

at that time.3 The available medical record evidence shows, instead, that Dr. Elijah last 

saw Plaintiff on July 18, 2017 (Doc. 120 ¶ 6), approximately 8 months before the ATP was 

issued. There is also no evidence that Dr. Elijah showed deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s eye complaints at any prior time. The evidence already set forth on summary 

judgment shows that in March 2017 Dr. Elijah noted to follow up on Plaintiff’s optometry 

evaluation and, on May 3, 2017, performed a Snellen eye test and noted to reorder an 

optometry evaluation. (Doc. 120-1 at 18, 22.) These facts do not show that she deliberately 

disregarded Plaintiff’s eye complaints, and Dr. Heller’s exams and reports more than two 

years later add nothing to the record that would change this showing. 

IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 

Plaintiff’s “Expedited Motion to Alter the Judgement Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59(e)” 

(Doc. 138) and the Motion is denied.

Dated this 29th day of April, 2020.

3 The Court already found that the lack of evidence that Plaintiff received Hall Pike 

testing and other care recommended in his ATPs created questions of fact that Corizon was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and had a policy and practice of 

deliberate indifference. The Court denied summary judgment to Corizon based, in part, on 

these questions of fact. (See Doc. 135 at 17, 21, 22.)

Case 2:18-cv-01860-DGC Document 142 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 5