Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02333/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02333-1/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

JWB

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oscar Shaun Moreno, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CJ Beddome, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2333-PHX-DGC (SPL)

ORDER

Plaintiff Oscar Shaun Moreno brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Maricopa County and three employees of the Fourth Avenue Jail (Doc. 1). Before

the Court is Defendants’ fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16). The Court will deny the

motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claim arose during his confinement as a pretrial detainee in Maricopa

County’s Fourth Avenue Jail. Plaintiff alleged that in late June 2011, a small golf-ball-sized

hernia tore and became baseball-sized, causing extreme pain (id. at 3 ¶ 1). Plaintiff claimed

that when he eventually saw a medical provider, immediate surgery was recommended but

was not provided (id. ¶ 2). Further, he averred that he was denied medical care and

Correctional Health Services allowed his pain medication to run out on more than one

occasion (id.). Plaintiff claimed that because of the delay in receiving treatment he suffered

increasing pain and his hernia became softball-sized (id. ¶ 3). Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants had the power and authority to ensure he received the necessary hernia surgery,

Case 2:11-cv-02333-DGC Document 26 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 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

1

Upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court dismissed Count II for

failure to state a claim and Defendant Arpaio, Correctional Health Services, Medical Staff

1 to 20, and Detention Staff 1 to 20 as Defendants (Doc. 5).

- 2 -

but they failed to act (id. ¶ 5). With respect to Maricopa County, Plaintiff asserted that a

policy exists which is designed to deny and delay medical care to inmates. Plaintiff sought

compensatory and punitive damages (id. at 6 ¶ 1). 

The Court ordered Defendants Beddome, Downs, Garitson, and Maricopa County to

respond to the (Doc. 5).1

 They move to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 16). 

II. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. North

Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the

complaint, or any claim within it, may be based on either a “‘lack of a cognizable legal

theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Johnson

v. Riverside Healthcare System LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

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

“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be

supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950

(2009). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.” Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if

the facts pled allow the court to make the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief.” 

In determining whether a complaint states a claim under this standard, the allegations

in the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996). Pro se pleadings,

“however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Ortez v. Washington

Case 2:11-cv-02333-DGC Document 26 Filed 08/02/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

County, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996). The rule of liberal construction of pleadings is

“particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th

Cir. 1992). 

Finally, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is almost never an appropriate

response when the court has already screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915A(b) and directed the defendant to respond. The standard for dismissal under Rule

12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”) is identical to the

standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (“fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted”). After the Court has screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b), a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will be granted only if the defendant can convince the Court that

reconsideration is appropriate.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with

a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels

Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the

court to rethink what it has already thought through. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.

Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Reconsideration is only appropriate if the district court

“(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

“No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made

in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers

Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

III. Analysis

Defendants’ primary contention is that grievances filed by Plaintiff and the

Correctional Health Service’s grievance policy show that no deliberate indifference occurred

(Doc. 16 at 5-13). The motion is essentially a motion for summary judgment. Defendants

argue that the grievances and grievance policy were necessarily incorporated by reference

Case 2:11-cv-02333-DGC Document 26 Filed 08/02/12 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

in Plaintiff’s Complaint and can be relied on in granting their motion to dismiss, but a careful

review of Plaintiff’s pleading reveals no mention of these documents (Doc. 1 at 3-A ¶ 5).

Moreover, the documents require interpretation and analysis, unlike the SEC documents at

issue in the case cited by Defendants. See U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

Defendants themselves underscore this point by engaging in more than seven pages of

analysis of Plaintiff’s medical care on the basis of information found in the grievances.

Granting Defendants’ motion would require the Court to evaluate the appropriateness of

Plaintiff’s medical care on the basis of the grievance responses and without the benefit of

Plaintiff’s medical records or affidavits of medical personnel, and without providing Plaintiff

an opportunity to conduct discovery. Defendants’ motion to dismiss will therefore be denied.

Defendants alternatively argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a

claim of deliberate indifference. As noted, however, the Court has already screened the

Complaint under a standard identical to that found in Rule 12(b)(6) and has determined that

the Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. Moreover, Defendants ignore the

requirement that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. See Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d

1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2008). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The reference is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is denied.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02333-DGC Document 26 Filed 08/02/12 Page 4 of 4