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

Fernando Bustillo,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Beacon, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00039-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Bustillo’s Fifth Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 53) For the following reasons, the Court orders Defendants Ryan, Norgren, Ash, 

Fellows, and Brockamontez to answer portions of Counts I-IV, and VII and dismisses the 

remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice, unless otherwise stated. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 7, 2018, the Court issued its Screening Order of Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24) On June 12, 2019, the Court issued its Screening Order 

of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint dismissing the Complaint and granting Plaintiff

leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 48) On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed 

his Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 53) This Order follows. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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.

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 11
- 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

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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plaint statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8 does not require 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 that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. 

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.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “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. 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. 

To state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as 

a result of a defendant’s specific conduct and show an affirmative link between the injury 

and the conduct. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976); see also Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676 (“[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through 

the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); Barren v. 

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his 

civil rights.”). 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 11
- 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

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action, 

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Furthermore, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential 

elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id.

COMPLAINT SUMMARY

Fifth Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint supersedes all prior complaints. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding a “well-established doctrine that an 

amended pleading supersedes the original pleading”). After amendment, the Court treats 

the prior complaint as nonexistent. Id. (citation omitted). As such, the Court will consider 

only those claims raised in Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint against only those 

Defendants named therein.

In his seven-count Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, 

monetary damages, and return of personal property from the following Defendants: 

(i) nurse’s aide J. Ryan; (ii) nurse M. Norgren; (iii) unknown warden’s office; (iv) 

unknown medical staff; (v) Dr. Ash; (vi) pharmacist J. Kavanaugh; (vii) unknown 

pharmacists; (viii) correctional officer A. Fellows; (ix) unknown correctional officers; and 

(x) correctional officer J. Brockamontez.

A. Count I

In Count I of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that he was

deliberately denied properly sized colostomy items by Defendant J. Ryan, a nurse’s aide at 

USP Tucson. (Doc. 53 at 3). Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to use a small wafer to 

cover his wound, which leaked feces down his legs everywhere he walked throughout the 

institution. Id. Plaintiff adds that Defendant Ryan found this to be funny in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Id. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant

Ryan continues to deny him colostomy items, particularly adhesive remover pads. Id.

Plaintiff asserts Defendant Ryan is a racist and that she demands that he return to Mexico 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 3 of 11
- 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

even though he is an American citizen. Id.

B. Count II 

In Count II of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that on or 

around January 4, 2018, Defendant nurse M. Norgen attempted to murder him by injecting 

him with a virus while purporting to give him an insulin injection. (Doc. 53 at 4) Plaintiff 

states that he was seventy-three years old at the time, and that viruses can be fatal to an old 

man. Id. Plaintiff alleges that after inoculation he became feverish and was bedridden for 

weeks. Id. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Norgren not only failed to be punished for 

her behavior, but that she was encouraged and supported by the warden’s office and 

medical staff in violation of his constitutional rights. Id. Plaintiff also asserts Defendant

Norgren continues to deny him insulin, even the deficient dose prescribed by Defendant

Dr. Ash. Id.

C. Count III

In Count III of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again complains that 

he was denied proper doses of insulin. Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges that in June 2019, 

Defendant Dr. Ash removed him from a sliding-scale insulin regimen and prescribed a 

fixed quantity of insulin regardless of his blood-sugar levels. Id. This behavior, Plaintiff 

argues, can cause him serious harm, including a stroke or heart attack. Id. Plaintiff 

concludes that Defendant Ash’s decision to place him on a fixed quantity of insulin 

constitutes attempted murder. Id. In addition to trying to kill him, Plaintiff contends 

Defendant Ash instructed the guards to confiscate his medical shoes and medical waste 

container. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Ash ignored his severe hernia condition 

and refused to examine his injured right ankle in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. 

Lastly, Plaintiff asserts Defendant Ash refused to prescribe medication for his enlarged 

prostate, which now causes him to urinate every 10-to-15 minutes. Id.

D. Count IV

In Count IV of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that on 

September 24, 2018, Defendant guard A. Fellows, and other unknown correctional officers,

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 4 of 11
- 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

confiscated a number of his prescription medications and ointments in violation of his 

Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. 53 at 7) Plaintiff alleges that because of the guards’ 

actions, he had to go several weeks without the necessary prescriptions until the pharmacy 

was able to reissue them. Id.

E. Count V 

In Count V of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that after 

September 24, 2018, all assigned pharmacists, including pharmacist J. Kavanaugh,

routinely denied prescription refills until he filed a lawsuit. Id. at 8. Plaintiff states that 

being denied prescribed medication forces one to live a painful existence and can lead to 

other diseases. Id.

F. Count VI

In Count VI of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that on or 

about July 9, 2018, Defendant guard J. Brockamontez confiscated and destroyed various 

personal property items, including a toothbrush holder, ink pens, and Gillette razors. (Doc. 

53 at 9) Plaintiff asserts that the confiscation of his personal property forces him to replace 

the items and prevents the exercise of personal hygiene and the ability to live a normal 

existence. Id.

G. Count VII 

In Count VII of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that

Defendant Brockamontez also ignored his single cell status and forced another inmate to 

reside with him in his cell. (Doc. 53 at 10) Plaintiff alleges that when he fell asleep, his 

cellmate assaulted him causing serious injuries that required medical treatment and 

hospitalization for several days. Id.

ANALYSIS

Inadequate Medical Treatment

Not every claim by a prisoner relating to inadequate medical treatment states a 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). To state 

a § 1983 or Bivens medical claim, a plaintiff must show (1) a “serious medical need by 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 5 of 11
- 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

demonstrating that failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or 

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain[,]” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the 

need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Deliberate indifference is a higher legal standard than negligence or lack of ordinary 

due care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); see also 

Broughton v. Cutter Lab’y’s., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (observing “[m]ere 

‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support a cause of action” 

under section 1983). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both 

“know[ ] of and disregard[ ] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must 

both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. 

Deliberate indifference may also be shown when a prison official intentionally 

denies, delays, or interferes with medical treatment or by the way prison doctors respond 

to the prisoner’s medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. “A difference of opinion does 

not amount to deliberate indifference[.]” Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The indifference must be substantial, Broughton, 622 F.2d at 460, and the action must rise 

to a level of “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105.

Property Claims

Unauthorized and intentional deprivations of property do not constitute a violation 

of procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause if a meaningful post-deprivation 

remedy for the loss is available. Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). The Bureau 

of Prisons’ (“BOP”) administrative remedy program provides such a remedy for conduct 

by BOP employees. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq. (2020). 

1. Count One

Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Ryan concerning the 

deliberate denial of properly sized colostomy supplies. Defendant Ryan shall answer this 

portion of Count One. 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 6 of 11
- 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

As to Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant Ryan verbally harassed him, Plaintiff 

fails to state a cognizable claim. See Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1997)

(citation omitted) (reiterating that the Ninth Circuit is “fully aware that the exchange of 

verbal insults between inmates and guards is a constant, daily ritual observed in this 

nation’s prisons[;]” and finding that verbal insults “do not rise to the level of an Eighth 

Amendment violation”). The portion of Count One that addresses verbal insults is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

2. Count Two

Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Norgren for the 

deliberate denial of insulin and the intentional injection of a virus on or about 

January 4, 2018. Defendant Norgren shall answer these portions of Count Two. 

As to Plaintiff’s contention that unknown warden’s office personnel and medical 

staff were deliberately indifferent to his harmful inoculation, Plaintiff omits crucial facts 

that would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that others were aware of, and 

turned a blind eye to, Defendant Norgren’s alleged viral injection. The Court dismisses

the portion of Count Two that concerns this allegation without prejudice. 

3. Count Three

Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Ash for the 

insufficient prescription of insulin. Defendant Ash shall answer this portion of Count 

Three.

As to Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant Ash directed guards to confiscate 

Plaintiff’s medical supplies, Plaintiff fails to allege that this behavior constituted deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical condition. Plaintiff also fails to allege that this action 

resulted in an injury. The Court dismisses the portion of Count Three that concerns this 

allegation without prejudice. 

As to Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant Ash ignored Plaintiff’s severe hernia 

condition and never looked at it, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts for the Court to 

draw the reasonable inference that Defendant Ash was aware of, and deliberately 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 7 of 11
- 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

indifferent to, this medical condition. The same goes for Plaintiff’s allegations that Dr. 

Ash refused to examine his injured right ankle and failed to prescribe medication for his 

enlarged prostate. The Court dismisses the portions of Count Three that concern these 

allegations without prejudice. 

4. Count Four 

Plaintiff states Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Fellows and unknown 

correctional officers for the intentional destruction of his prescription medication. 

Defendant Fellows shall answer this portion of Count Four. 

5. Count Five 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Kavanaugh and other unknown 

pharmacists for the denial of prescription refills, as he fails to allege sufficient facts for the 

Court to draw the reasonable inference that Defendant Kavanaugh, and others, were 

deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition. The Court dismisses Count Five

without prejudice. 

6. Count Six 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a constitutional violation against Defendant 

Brockamontez, as he fails to allege a constitutional right to the confiscated personal items 

or provide sufficient facts for the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Defendant 

Brockamontez failed to adhere to Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights under the Fifth 

Amendment. The Court dismisses Count Six without prejudice. 

7. Count Seven

Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to inmate health or 

safety claim against Defendant Brockamontez. Defendant Brockamontez shall answer this 

portion of Count Seven. 

WARNINGS

A. Release

Since Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, if he is released 

while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not been paid in full, Plaintiff must, 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 8 of 11
- 9 -

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

within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay the unpaid 

balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release or (2) file a non-prisoner application

to proceed in forma pauperis. 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

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff 

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure 

to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

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) (instructing that a district court may dismiss an 

action for failure to comply with any order of the court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Counts Five and Six of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint are 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

2. Defendants Kavanaugh, unknown pharmacists, unknown medical staff, and 

unknown warden’s office personnel are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

3. Defendant Ryan must answer the portion of Count One concerning the 

deliberate denial of properly sized colostomy supplies; Defendant Norgren must answer 

the portion of Count Two concerning the deliberate denial of insulin and the intentional 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 9 of 11
- 10 -

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

injection of a virus on or about January 4, 2018; Defendant Ash must answer the portion 

of Count Three concerning the insufficient prescription of insulin; Defendant Fellows must 

answer the portion of Count Four concerning the intentional destruction of Plaintiff’s 

prescription medication; and Defendant Brockamontez must answer the portion of Count 

Seven concerning Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety claim. 

4. The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including a copy of

his Fifth Amended Complaint, this Order, and summons forms for Defendants Ash, 

Fellows, and Brockamontez.1 

5. Plaintiff must complete 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.

6. If Plaintiff does not complete service of the Summons and Fifth Amended

Complaint on a Defendant within 60 days of the filing of this Order, the action may be 

dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).

7. The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Fifth 

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

8. The United States Marshal must, for Defendants Ash, Fellows, and 

Brockamontez, personally serve a copy of the Summons, Fifth Amended Complaint, and 

this Order at Government expense, pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) and (i)(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

9. The Clerk of Court must send by certified mail a copy of the Summons for

each individual Defendant, the Fifth Amended Complaint, and this Order to: (1) the civil

process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, and (2)

the Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

10. Defendants Ryan, Norgren, Ash, Fellows, and Brockamontez must answer 

the relevant portions of the Fifth Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate 

1 Defendants Ryan and Norgren were served with Summons on December 27, 2018. 

(Docs. 39, 40)

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 10 of 11
- 11 -

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

motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

11. 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 22nd day of September, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ Document 64 Filed 09/23/20 Page 11 of 11