Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00946/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00946-1/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

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan Michael Ploof, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-13-946-PHX-DGC (MHB)

ORDER

On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate

medical care. (Doc. 1.) This matter was referred to the Early Mediation Pilot Program.

(Doc. 10.) The matter was not successfully resolved via mediation, and Plaintiff filed a First

Amended Complaint on August 19, 2013. (Doc. 18.) In his two-count First Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff sued the following Defendants “in their official capacities”: Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADOC) Director Charles L. Ryan, Facility Health Administrator

and Contract Monitor Matthew A. Musson, Division Director and Health Services Program

Evaluation Administrator Richard Pratt, and Medical Director Dr. Winfred Darryl Williams.

(Id.) In both counts, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment rights regarding

medical care. (Id.) In his Request for Relief, he sought declaratory and injunctive relief,

monetary damages, and his costs of suit and litigation expenses. (Id.)

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 1 of 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

1

 Plaintiff corrected the Second Amended Complaint to include page 4-B that was

omitted from the filing on May 6, 2014. 

- 2 -

The Court screened the First Amended Complaint, dismissing Medical Director Dr.

Winfred Darryl Williams and Plaintiff’s request for monetary damages because the

Defendants were sued in their official capacities. (Doc. 27.) The Court also found that

Plaintiff’s allegations in Count One were insufficient to state an official capacity claim for

prospective injunctive relief. (Id.) The Court did note that an allegation that individuals

failed to provide adequate healthcare to Plaintiff could possibly state an Eighth Amendment

deliberate indifference claim against individuals in their personal capacity, but fell short of

stating an official capacity claim. (Id.) The Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim in Count

Two regarding a policy or practice of failing to provide timely access to healthcare and

administrative oversight. (Id.)

Thereafter, prior to Defendants’ appearance, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File

an Amended Complaint with the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached. (Doc. 29.)

Plaintiff sought to name Defendants in their official and individual capacities. (Id.)

Apparently unaware of Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 37.) On April 4, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff filed a Second

Amended Complaint on May 6, 2014 (Doc. 57), and a corrected Second Amended Complaint

on May 13, 2014 (Doc. 61).1

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. See 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.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-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.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “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. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

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

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94 (2007) (per curiam)).

II. Second Amended Complaint

In his two-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants

“in their official and or personal capacities”: Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC)

Director Charles L. Ryan, Facility Health Administrator and Contract Monitor Matthew A.

Musson, and Division Director and Health Services Program Evaluation Administrator

Richard Pratt. In both counts, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment rights

regarding medical care. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive

relief, monetary damages, and his costs of suit and litigation expenses.

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

In Count One, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Ryan, Musson, and Pratt have a policy

and practice of failing to provide him with adequate healthcare and are deliberately

indifferent to the fact that the failure to do so has resulted in significant injury to his heart.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants, through written policies and personal letters, promised

Plaintiff that they would provide sufficient resources to provide “the community standard of

healthcare,” but that they are aware that they fall far below this standard. Plaintiff states that

Defendants failed to create policy guidelines to assist clinicians in improving his healthcare

and status over time. He states the current policies lack guidance allowing a healthcare

provider the ability to “obtain, request, provide or arrange for the provision of ‘timely

treatment.’” He asserts that the Defendants are responsible for oversight and supervision, but

due to the current policy and practice have deliberately failed to provide proper supervision

which “has caused extensive damage and has shortened his life.”

In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Ryan, Musson, and Pratt have a policy

and practice of “failing to provide administrative oversight,” which deprives him of proper

and adequate medical care, and are “deliberately indifferent to the fact that the failure to do

so has resulted in significant injury to [Plaintiff].” Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ “failure

to direct by policy and oversight proper medical care” has caused him to experience

prolonged and unnecessary pain and suffering. Plaintiff states that unit health care providers,

by policy, are required to submit a referral for “off unit” care to a review board/committee.

He contends that “the referral is not for medical reasons,” it takes months for the referrals to

specialists to be processed, many referrals are denied, and unit medical personnel must then

either resubmit the referral or do nothing.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ryan, Musson, and Pratt endorse a policy and

practice of failing to provide timely access to health care, are deliberately indifferent to the

risk of harm to Plaintiff from the failure, have failed to provide “clear processes that are

adhered to,” and have allowed a “failed system with clear unreasonable delays and refusals

to cause current and future heart failure.” Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to

create an effective tracking and scheduling system for healthcare appointments, there are

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

lengthy delays in responding to health needs request forms and providing necessary care, and

there are no protocols or timeframes for when he is supposed to receive a face-to-face

evaluation or a medical appointment. He claims Defendants have been warned repeatedly

about the unreasonable delays, which are the proximate cause of his heart damage and the

continued deterioration of his heart. Plaintiff also asserts that unit medical staff has advised

him that a year-long wait for cardiac care is an acceptable standard.

III. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated violations of his Eighth Amendment rights

regarding medical care against Defendants Ryan, Musson, and Pratt. The Court will require

Defendants to answer the Second Amended Complaint.

IV. Warnings

A. 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.

B. Copies

Because Plaintiff is currently confined in ASPC-Eyman and this case is subject to

General Order 14-08, Plaintiff is not required to serve Defendants with a copy of every

document he files or to submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court, as

would ordinarily be required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 5.4. If Plaintiff is transferred to a prison other than ASPC-Eyman, he will be

notified of the requirements for service and copies for the Court that are required for inmates

whose cases are not subject to General Order 14-08.

C. 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,

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 5 of 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

2

 If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections,

Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee works.

Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the Arizona

Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

- 6 -

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) Defendants’ Motion for a Screening Order (Doc. 68) is GRANTED.

(2) Defendants Ryan, Musson, and Pratt must answer the Second Amended

Complaint.

(3) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff this Order, and a copy of the Marshal’s

Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of

Service of Summons form for Defendants Ryan, Musson, and Pratt.

(4) Plaintiff must complete2

 and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 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 Second 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. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

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

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 signed waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver

of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or is not returned by a Defendant

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

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, Second 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, Second

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 Second

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff.

(9) Defendants must answer the Second 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.

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 7 of 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

- 8 -

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

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.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 76 Filed 06/11/14 Page 8 of 8