Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08013/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corizon Incorporated
Defendant
Julie Lucek
Defendant
Donald Ray Palmer
Plaintiff
Elsie Stowell
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

TERMPSREF 

KM 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Donald Ray Palmer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Corizon Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-8013-PCT-DGC (MHB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Donald Ray Palmer, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Eyman (ASPC-Eyman), has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The 

Court will order Defendants Lucek and Stowell to answer Counts One and Two of the 

Complaint and will dismiss the remaining Defendant without prejudice. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing fee will be 

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 

Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 

agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 

. . . 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

II. 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. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

 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, thedefendant-unlawfully-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. 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)). 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

III. Complaint 

 Plaintiff names Corizon Incorporated, Registered Nurse Julie Lucek, and Complex 

Site Manager Elsie Stowell as Defendants in the Complaint. Plaintiff raises two claims 

for relief. 

 In Count One, Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when 

he was denied medication and appropriate treatment after knee surgery. Plaintiff states 

that on July 18, 2013, he had knee surgery for a meniscus tear. Plaintiff was instructed to 

rest and elevate his knee, ice the operated area for 30 minutes on/30 minutes off during 

the first two days, take medication as directed, and bear weight on his leg “as tolerated.” 

Plaintiff claims that after returning to ASPC-Winslow, where he was confined at the 

time, a nurse wrote out a daily activity order that included meals in his living quarters and 

no school or recreation activities, and issued Plaintiff a pair of crutches. Plaintiff claims 

that a few hours later he was called to medical to receive medication. Plaintiff informed 

the officer on duty that he had just had surgery and could not make it to medical on 

crutches. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lucek eventually brought Plaintiff his 

medication but informed him that he would have to come to medical to pick up his next 

dose of medication. 

 Plaintiff states that he was then later called to “medical” to “sign another laid in 

order terminating the previous order.” Plaintiff again informed detention officers that he 

could not make it to medical. Plaintiff claims that “medical never called Plaintiff to pick 

up his medication or brought him his medication ever again.” Plaintiff claims that 

“medical” terminated the previous order and stopped his “meals and ice for his swollen 

knee[,] disregarding the doctor’s instructions.” Plaintiff alleges that “medical” and 

Defendant Lucek knew of his need for medication, ice, and meals, but failed to take 

reasonable measures, and that Defendant Lucek was deliberately indifferent to the 

doctor’s instructions and failed to provide needed treatment to Plaintiff. 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that he informed Defendant Stowell, through a 

grievance, that he was not receiving medication, meals, or ice. Plaintiff alleges that 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

Defendant Stowell responded by telling him that the doctor’s instructions are 

recommendations and that “they (medical) can either follow those recommendations or 

write their own.” Plaintiff claims that Defendant Stowell knew of Plaintiff’s need for 

medication, meals, and ice, but failed to respond reasonably. Plaintiff alleges that as a 

result of Defendant Stowell’s failure to order treatment, he suffered unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain. Plaintiff also alleges that the knee injuries are continuing and 

that he has been denied a walking cane. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional 

public function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts 

to support that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or 

custom promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 

698 F.3d 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012); Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 

1997). Plaintiff has not alleged that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a 

policy, decision, or custom of Defendant Corizon Incorporated. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

has failed to state a claim against Defendant Corizon Incorporated and this defendant will 

be dismissed without prejudice. 

 Further, to state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they 

suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an 

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Plaintiff has failed to link his claims of 

ongoing knee injuries and denial of a walking cane to the actions of a specific defendant. 

For that reason, the Court will only consider claims relating to Plaintiff’s post-surgery 

treatment. 

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

 Liberally construed, Plaintiff has adequately stated an Eighth Amendment medical 

claim against Defendants Lucek and Stowell with respect to post-surgery treatment. The 

Court will require these Defendants to answer the Complaint. 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 4 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

VI. Warnings

A. Release

 Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his 

release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he 

intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to 

comply may result in dismissal of this action. 

B. 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. 

C. 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. 

D. 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, 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) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 

 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 5 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

filing fee. 

(3) Defendant Corizon Incorporated is dismissed without prejudice. 

 (4) Defendants Lucek and Stowell must answer Counts One and Two of the 

Complaint. 

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

Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for 

Defendants Lucek and Stowell. 

 (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 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); 

LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 

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

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

 (9) 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: 

 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 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 6 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, 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, 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. 

 (10) 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) Defendants must answer the 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. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 7 of 8
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

 (13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns pursuant to 

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as 

authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2014. 

Case 3:14-cv-08013-SPL-MHB Document 7 Filed 05/22/14 Page 8 of 8