Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03313/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03313-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anant Kumar Tripati,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-03313-PHX-JJT (JFM)

ORDER 

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 45) submitted by 

United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf recommending that the Court require an 

answer on parts of Count One of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 43) and 

dismiss the remainder of the claims. Plaintiff timely filed Objections (Doc. 46) and later 

filed two supplements thereto (Docs. 47, 51). 

In his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. 43), Plaintiff raises six counts

against 52 separate Defendants. In its screening of the original complaint, the Court 

dismissed without prejudice five of those six counts and parts of the sixth, as well as two 

other counts Plaintiff does not seek to resurrect. In so doing, the Court identified in detail 

the deficiencies in the original complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

caselaw interpreting those rules, and the substantive law of the claims. (Id.)

As Judge Metcalf observes in the R&R, Plaintiff makes no effort to address the 

deficiencies identified in the Court’s last Order of partial dismissal. The SAC is

exceptionally hard to comprehend, because Plaintiff has cut and pasted somewhere 

Case 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 7
- 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

between four and seven documents into one, repeating and skipping paragraph numbers so 

frequently that reference to the document is near impossible. But the Court is able to discern 

that four of the six claims he re-raises simply repeat precisely what he alleged in the 

dismissed original Complaint. There are no substantive changes or additions and in most 

cases Plaintiff merely renews—indeed photocopies—the identical claims the Court found 

inadequate in the prior dismissal order. Judge Metcalf concluded that only Count One, 

which the Court had found sufficiently stated a claim against several Defendants in the 

original complaint, satisfied Rule 8’s requirements. Additionally, Plaintiff added 

allegations to Count One as to several additional Defendants which Judge Metcalf 

recommended were adequate to state a claim. In other words, Judge Metcalf found, aside 

from Count One, Plaintiff simply repeats five counts the Court dismissed for inadequacy 

before, and hopes for a different result.

Plaintiff’s timely Objection and first Supplement to Objection (Docs. 46, 47) totaled 

22 pages, in violation of LRCiv 7.2(e)(3), which limits the text of any objections to an 

R&R to ten pages absent the Court’s permission to exceed. The Court nonetheless 

considered both documents.1 The Objection and Supplement are largely illegible, proceed 

in sentence fragments and make reference to citations in the SAC that the Court was at 

times unable to follow. Nonetheless, the Court is able to understand Plaintiff’s objections, 

and finds them unpersuasive. Plaintiff merely argues in conclusory fashion that Judge 

Metcalf’s conclusions about sufficiency of pleading are wrong, without citation to any law 

on point or demonstration that Judge Metcalf overlooked some affirmative satisfactory 

allegation.

By way of example, in part of Count One of the SAC, Plaintiff attempts to allege a 

deliberate indifference claim via alteration of medical records against Defendants 

Bohuszewicz and Shuman. The following is the sum total of allegations Plaintiff leveled 

against Bohuszewicz and Shuman in support of this claim:

1 The Court will strike and not consider Plaintiff’s second Supplement to the Objections 

(Doc. 51), which Plaintiff filed over a month and a half late, after any responses were due 

from Defendants, and which also would have further violated the page limitations and 

represented a third bite at the objection apple.

Case 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 7
- 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

CORIZON ALTERING RECORDS

... K. Raney made the following false entries amongst others 

in my medical records. Rainey entered that a provider ordered 

I be subjected to blood tests. When I asked Raney who the 

provider was that ordered the blood tests, Raney informed me 

[sic] just name anyone and Raney will have that person sign 

off. Corizon and Centurion employees changed my blood 

pressure readings. When my BP is either 160 or more than 100 

I get clonidine. The records show that these have been changed. 

Medical records also show orders for my diet and other orders 

given by Igwe had been changed.

L. Raney did this because Bohuszewicz and Shuman 

continued to pressure Corizon employees. Raney advised me 

“ADOC is our client and we do what they want.”

M. Raney then cancelled all other special needs orders. 

Although now under Centurion, the same Corizon personnel 

are employed and continuing same wrongful actions on behalf 

of ADOC personnel they performed under Corizon. When I 

confronted her she told me as I had published books showing 

Corizon is denying healthcare I should go to court.

(SAC at 12-13.) In the R&R, Judge Metcalf correctly concluded that the above allegations 

“are too vague to adequately state a claim” of deliberate indifference. (R&R at 13.) The 

Court notes the above is typical of Plaintiff’s pleading throughout the SAC and the issues 

Judge Metcalf identified with it.

Plaintiff objected to this recommendation, stating in total as follows:

Contrary to Page 13 line 13 to 19, at Page 12-13 K to M I show 

harm by stating, as a consequence of altering the records, my 

diet and special needs order have been voided.

(Doc. 46 at 6.) That’s it. Plaintiff repeats such conclusory arguments, without pointing to 

any specific allegations in the SAC to support his positions, throughout the Objection. And 

in each case his response is inadequate to overcome Judge Metcalf’s considered application 

of the rules and law to the SAC. The Court will overrule the Objection, adopt the analysis 

of the R&R in whole, and follow its recommendation to require an answer by Defendants 

Case 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 7
- 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

enumerated below to certain deliberate indifference and retaliation claims set forth in 

Count One and dismiss the remainder of the SAC.

The Court will not adopt the recommendation that the dismissals be without 

prejudice, however. The Court should grant leave to amend if it appears at all possible that 

plaintiff can correct the defect or defects. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000). And the Court did grant leave to amend; in the instant case it permitted Plaintiff to 

amend his original complaint twice. The Court also provided Plaintiff detailed instruction 

on exactly what was wrong with his original complaint, issue by issue, claim by claim, and 

component by component. The screening Order on the original complaint was 41 pages 

long, with all but a handful of those pages devoted to setting forth the legal requirements 

for pleading and identifying precisely how the claims—except for components of Count

One—were deficient. (Doc. 21.) 

In response, Plaintiff photocopied and submitted as his SAC the very pages from 

his dismissed original complaint, adding some handwritten interlineation and some typed 

additions to Count One and two additional handwritten pages to Count Four. None of those 

additions addressed the deficiencies set forth exhaustively in the screening Order. Plaintiff 

therefore has been afforded direction on the deficiencies of his claims and how to cure 

them, and has had two opportunities to cure them. He has not done so. The Court therefore 

will dismiss the deficient claims with prejudice. Arlow v. California Dep’t Corr., 168 Fed. 

App’x 249, 250 (9th Cir. 2006)(district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se 

prisoner complaint without leave to amend where it had already allowed prisoner plaintiff 

one opportunity to amend and cure defects and provided instructions on how to do so).

This matter was initiated fifteen months ago. It is time to move it forward with service and 

an answer or other responsive pleading to the remaining claim.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 46, 47) to the R&R in 

this matter and striking Plaintiff’s second Supplement to the Objections (Doc. 51.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the reasoning and analysis of Judge 

Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 45) and adopting the recommendations regarding sufficiency of 

Case 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 7
- 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

Plaintiff’s claims in the SAC, but rejecting the recommendation concerning dismissal of 

the inform and uncured claims without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ruling that Defendants Corizon, Stewart, Arhin, 

Minev, Powell, Osinloye, Weigel, Igwe, Shuman and Centurion must respond to the claims 

in Count One of the SAC alleging deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s high blood pressure, 

heart condition and COPD.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Young, Bohuszewicz and Shuman 

must respond to the claim in Count One of the SAC alleging deliberate indifference to a 

low-salt allergy diet.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Bohuszewicz and Shuman must 

respond to the claim in Count One of the SAC alleging retaliation based on a false 

disciplinary report of forgery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice the remainder of the SAC, 

including all remaining aspects of Count One not approved above, and Counts Two through 

Six in their entirety, with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Defendants Martinez, Arredondo, Ruiz, 

Curran, Kepney, Erwin, Respicio-Moriarty, Dossett, Johnson, Klausner, Glynn, Robertson, 

McWilliams, Ryan, Pratt, Ulibarri, Han, Days, Talley, Bonorand, Pacheco, Jacobs, 

Lawrence, Morrissey, Carter, Renaud Cook, Basha, Grimm, Conlon, Hover, O’Brien, Bell, 

Williams, Miller, Perkins, Hahn, Raney, Smith, Trinity Food Services, and Queen with 

prejudice.

The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 43), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver 

forms for Defendants Corizon, Stewart, Arhin, Minev, Powell, Osinloye, Weigel, Igwe, 

Shuman, Young, Bohuszewicz and Centurion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must complete1and return the service 

packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United 

1

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

Case 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 7
- 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

States Marshal will not provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this 

Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 90 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshal must retain the 

Summons, a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future 

use.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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, within 30 days of the date of the notice and 

request for waiver of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to 

avoid being charged the cost of personal service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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:

. . . . 

. . . . 

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 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -

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

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Second Amended 

Complaint, and this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) and Rule 4(h)(1) 

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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each Defendant 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 31st day of January, 2020.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-03313-RM-JFM Document 60 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 7