Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00200/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00200-1/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 

Galen Lloyd Houser, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00200-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 37), 

United States Magistrate Judge James E. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) (Doc. 38) issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and Plaintiff’s 

Motions for Relief (Doc. 34; Doc. 54) and to Compel Constitutionally Adequate 

Healthcare (Doc. 45). Plaintiff filed timely objections to Judge Metcalf’s 

recommendation that Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Doc. 

41.) Because objections have been filed, the Court will review those Counts of the 

petition de novo. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc). For the following reasons, the Court accepts the R&R in its entirety. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Galen Lloyd Houser is confined in the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (“ADOC”) Complex in Florence, Arizona. In his initial Complaint, Plaintiff 

alleged ten counts regarding the denial of constitutionally adequate medical care and 

retaliation for reporting the denial of medical care. (Doc. 8.) He named as Defendants 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-GMS-JFM Document 55 Filed 02/13/14 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

ADOC Director Charles L. Ryan, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), Corizon 

Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), Statewide Medical Director Dr. Tom Bell, Statewide Nursing 

Director Caron Grant-Ellis, and John and Jane Does A-Z, whom Houser identified as 

employees of ADOC, Wexford, and Corizon. (Doc. 8.) After screening, the Court 

declined to direct service to the fictitiously named defendants and dismissed a number of 

Houser’s parties and claims. (Doc. 25.) 

 Houser’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 37) alleges ten counts regarding the 

denial of medical care, one count alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, and three counts of retaliation. Houser names as Defendants ADOC Director Ryan, a 

number of particular ADOC employees, corporations Wexford and Corizon, a number of 

their employees, and Jane Doe Night Nurses. (Id.) In his R&R, Judge Metcalf 

recommends the dismissal of Counts I, II, III, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV of Houser’s First 

Amended Complaint, the dismissal of Counts IX and X as they relate to particular 

defendants, the dismissal of a number of the individual defendants, and that the 

remaining defendants be directed to file answers regarding Houser’s remaining claims. 

(Doc. 38.) Houser filed timely objections to Judge Metcalf’s recommendation for the 

dismissal of Counts I, II, and III. (Doc. 41.) The Court accepts the remainder of Judge 

Metcalf’s R&R, and will consider each of Houser’s objections. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Counts I and II 

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan violated Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment rights as Ryan was personally aware of the denial of medical treatment for 

Plaintiff’s chronic medical issues and he failed to provide Plaintiff with necessary 

treatment. (Doc. 37 at 3.) In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan was 

deliberately indifferent to the deficiencies in the ADOC health care system, also in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that he failed to cure these deficiencies despite 

his awareness of the risk to Plaintiff. (Doc. 27-1 at 2.) 

 After screening his initial Complaint, the Court dismissed these counts because 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-GMS-JFM Document 55 Filed 02/13/14 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate both that Ryan knew of Plaintiff’s medical 

circumstances and that the failure to respond would likely result in excessive risk to 

Plaintiff. Judge Metcalf noted that Plaintiff cured the first of these deficiencies in his First 

Amended Complaint by including allegations that he made Ryan aware of his 

circumstances through various communications (Doc. 37 at 3–4), but that Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment Complaint continues to lack sufficient allegations that Ryan knew that the 

failure to respond would likely result in excessive risk to Plaintiff. In his objection to the 

dismissal of these two counts, Plaintiff cites a letter from Ryan ordering Wexford to 

“ensure that every future grievance, including any medication issues, is reviewed, 

investigated and responded to appropriately and timely to prevent delay in care and 

negative outcomes.” (Doc. 41 at 2.) 

 However, this citation, without further evidence, only demonstrates that Ryan was 

aware that negative outcomes may arise when Wexford fails to respond to patient 

concerns. The letter does not demonstrate that Ryan was actually aware of the risk to 

Plaintiff caused by the denial of his particular treatment needs. This portion of the R&R 

is accepted. 

II. Count III 

 In this Count, Plaintiff alleges that various officials conspired to retaliate against 

him and did retaliate against him, in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Doc. 37 at 

7.) First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fulton retaliated against him by failing to 

document missing pills and by conspiring with Nurse Lahr to seize the evidence of the 

pills. (Id. at 7–8.) Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Eccles told him she would 

submit his grievance against Defendant Fulton, but instead conspired to conceal 

Defendants Fulton and Lahr’s retaliation against him by submitting his retaliation 

complaint as a medical grievance. (Id. at 8–9.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Log and Defendant Ryan’s office were also somehow involved in this alleged 

retaliation and that Defendant Ryan was aware of this retaliation. (Id. at 9.) 

 As described in the R&R, Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements of a 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-GMS-JFM Document 55 Filed 02/13/14 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

retaliation claim. (Doc. 38 at 7.) Plaintiff objects to what he alleges is the R&R’s 

mischaracterization of his retaliation claims. However, Plaintiff’s objection fails to 

demonstrate that his claims meet the required elements. For example, as detailed in the 

R&R, Plaintiff does not address how Defendant Fulton’s conduct created an actual 

chilling effect, how he can demonstrate that Defendants Fulton and Lahr participated in 

any joint action, or how Defendant Eccles’ alleged failure to correctly file Plaintiff’s 

complaint was “because of” his actions. Thus, this portion of the R&R is accepted. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) That Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 38) is accepted. 

(2) That the following portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) Counts I, II, 

III, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV; (2) those portions of Count IX related to Defendant Sestiaga; 

and (3) those portions of Counts X related to Defendants Bradfield, Log, and Eccles. 

 (3) That Defendants Ryan, Pratt, Gross, Mussen, Log, Eccles, Fulton, Sestiaga, 

Bradfield, Nutter, and Corizon Health, Inc. be dismissed. 

(4) That an answer be required as follows: (1) from Defendant Wexford Health 

Services, Inc. as to Count IV; (2) from Defendant Lahr as to Counts V, IX, and X; (3) 

from Defendant Bell as to Count VII; and (4) from Defendant Grant-Ellis as to Count 

VII. 

(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including 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 

Wexford Health Services, Lahr, Bell, and Grant-Ellis. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-GMS-JFM Document 55 Filed 02/13/14 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

(6) Plaintiff must complete1 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. 

(7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or 

complete service of the Summons and Amended Complaint on a Defendant within 120 

days of the filing of the Amended 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. Fed. R. 

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

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

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use. 

(8) 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 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, Amended Complaint, Motion 

to Compel Constitutionally Adequate Healthcare (Doc. 45), Motions for Relief 

(Doc. 34; Doc. 54) 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 

 1

 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. 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-GMS-JFM Document 55 Filed 02/13/14 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

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, First 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. 

(9) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and 

Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not 

the Plaintiff. 

(11) Defendant must answer the 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. 

(12) 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. 

(13) That Defendants shall, within twenty days from the date of such service or thirty 

days from the date of any acceptance of service, whichever is later, file a response to 

Plaintiff’s Motions for Relief (Doc. 34; Doc. 54) and Motion to Compel Constitutionally 

Adequate Health Care (Doc. 45). 

 Dated this 13th day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-GMS-JFM Document 55 Filed 02/13/14 Page 6 of 6