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

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT 

OF ARIZONA

Gary Jerome Harper,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 18-00298-PHX-DGC (CDB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Gary Jerome Harper, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence, South Unit, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Charles L. Ryan and Corizon Health

for the alleged denial of adequate healthcare in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

(Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 61.) 

Harper filed his Response to the Motion, and, although ordered to do so, Defendants did 

not file a reply. (See Doc. 64 at 3.) The Court will deny Defendants’ Motion.1

I. Background

Harper is terminally ill with cancer, and he alleged that Ryan set up and 

implemented policies that limit or deny treatment for terminally ill prisoners. (Doc. 1.) 

1 Upon the filing of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court issued 

an order with the notice required under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(en banc), which informed Harper of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56 and set a briefing schedule. (Doc. 64.) 
- 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

Harper alleged that Corizon failed to comply with orders from the treating specialist, 

including orders for follow-up treatment and prescribed medications. (Id.) Harper also 

alleged that Corizon failed to provide medication and treatment for pain, fever, and 

complications related to his catheter. (Id.) According to Harper, Defendants failed to 

provide post-surgery follow-up treatment, treatment for an infection surrounding his 

suprapubic catheter, pain management treatment related to his cancer, and denied requests 

to send him to an oncologist. (Id.) Harper seeks injunctive relief and damages. (Id. at 10.) 

Ryan and Corizon move for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Harper 

cannot show that he suffered a constitutional violation as a result of a Corizon policy; 

(2) there is no evidence any Corizon agent was consciously aware of a serious risk to 

Harper’s health and disregarded it; (3) Ryan cannot be liable as a supervisor because there 

is no evidence he was aware of Harper’s medical issues and he had no direct involvement 

in Harper’s healthcare; and (4) Harper fails to present evidence that a policy, practice, or 

custom caused him to suffer a constitutional injury. (Doc. 61.)

II. Summary Judgment Standard

A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The 

movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying 

those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate 

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not 

produce anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Co., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 

1102–03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden then 

shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and that the fact 

in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the 

governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250; see Triton 
- 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

Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need 

not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. 

Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288–89 (1968); however, it must “come forward with 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 

Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal citation omitted); see Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

At summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and 

determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court does not make credibility determinations; it must 

believe the nonmovant’s evidence and draw all inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Id. at 

255; Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). The court need 

consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any other materials in the record. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Further, where the nonmovant is pro se, the court must consider 

as evidence in opposition to summary judgment all of the pro se litigant’s contentions that 

are based on personal knowledge and that are set forth in verified pleadings and motions. 

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004); see Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 

454, 460 (9th Cir. 1995).

Finally, where the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the court may also consider 

developments that postdate the motions to determine whether an injunction is warranted. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846 (1994). 

III. Relevant Facts

In 2007, Harper was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he had recurrences 

in 2011 and 2014. (Doc. 63 at 24.) His last oncology appointment was in 2014 with Dr. 

John Kelly in Tahoe, Nevada. (Id. at 24, 39.) Harper also suffers from idiopathic 

neurogenic bladder, testicular epididymitis (inflammation), and thyroid disorder, among 

other conditions. (Id. at 32, 34, 39.)
- 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

Harper entered the custody of the ADC in March 2017.2 On March 31, 2017, while 

at the Phoenix Alhambra Reception facility, Harper saw Dr. Sheldon Epstein for a physical. 

(Doc. 62 ¶ 1; Doc. 68 ¶ 1.) At this appointment, Harper was listed as 5 feet 11 inches tall 

and weighing 158 pounds. (Doc. 63 at 2.)3 As to Harper’s medical history, Dr. Epstein 

noted Hodgkin’s lymphoma, remission 2014; bone marrow and left cervical node biopsies; 

radiation and chemotherapy 2007–2014; bedtime nausea; and chronic arthralgias (joint 

pain). (Id.) Dr. Epstein assessed the following: malignant neoplasm (growth of tissue); 

thyrotoxicosis (excess thyroid hormone), chronic pain syndrome, calculus of kidney

(kidney stone), tachycardia, and nausea. (Id. at 3.) Dr. Epstein ordered Meclizine (for 

nausea), Meloxicam (for chronic pain syndrome), and Propranolol (for Tachycardia). (Id.

at 4–5.) Dr. Epstein also issued Special Needs Orders (SNOs) for Harper to be given a 

lower bunk, catheter supplies, and daily showers. (Id. at 5.) In the “Plan Notes” section 

of the medical record, Dr. Epstein wrote that Harper needs an endocrine appointment. (Id.

at 5-6.)

On April 4, 2017, Harper saw Nurse Practitioner (NP) Denehy. (Doc. 62 ¶ 2; 

Doc. 68 ¶ 2.) Denehy noted that Harper had a history of an idiopathic neurogenic bladder 

and had an indwelling (inside the body) catheter up until three weeks before. (Id.) Harper 

had been removing the catheter himself but could no longer advance the catheter past what 

Harper described as a bladder sphincter. (Id.) Denehy contacted Dr. Malachinski, who 

recommended inserting a Foley urinary catheter and doing a urine culture lab test. (Id.) 

Physician Assistant (PA) Spizzirri attempted to insert the Foley catheter, but was unable to 

pass the catheter into the bladder in two attempts. (Id.) NP Denehy then got approval to 

send Harper to the hospital emergency room for insertion of an indwelling Foley. (Id.)

4

 

2 See https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch (search by 

prisoner number for “317663) (last visited Jan. 21, 2020).

3 The ADC Datasearch information for Harper shows that, when he entered ADC 

custody, he weighed 169 pounds. See supra n.3.

4 Defendants did not submit the hospital medical records from the April 4, 2017 

emergency room visit. (See Doc. 63.) 
- 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

The next day, Harper saw Dr. Izabela Musial for a follow up to the hospital visit. 

(Doc. 62 ¶ 3; Doc. 68 ¶ 3.) The medical records document that “Hospital discharge 

instructions reviewed and acted upon with additional changes see plan,” but the hospital 

discharge records were not submitted to the Court. (Doc. 63 at 24.) Harper reported blood 

in his urine, a 30-pound weight loss in the last three months, loss of appetite, anxiety, and 

sweating. (Id.) In the “Assessment Notes,” Dr. Musial wrote that Harper had 

“1. neurogenic bladder with difficult self-catheterizations; 2. nephrolithiasis [kidney stone]

needs eval[uation]; 3. Hodgkin[’s] lymphoma needs eval; 4. Hyperthyroidism not well 

controlled, needs labs and endocrinology input.” (Id. at 26.) Dr. Musial started Harper on 

Ibuprofen and Oxybutynin as recommended by the emergency room and she documented 

that Harper needs referrals to urology and endocrinology. (Id. at 29.) A nurses’ order was 

issued to get Harper’s past medical records, and Dr. Musial also wrote “Please make sure 

that whatever yard [Harper] is transferred to that they order ASAP 1. Urology consult . . . 

2. Endocrinology for controlling hypothyroidism possible Iodine radiation . . . 3. Oncology 

to eval[uate] Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” (Id. at 30.)

On April 11, 2017, Harper was transferred from Phoenix Alhambra Reception to 

the Florence South Unit, and on April 20, 2017, he saw NP Udoko for follow up. (Id. at 

32.) NP Udoko documented that Harper needed follow up for thyroid enlargement and 

abnormal levels, that Harper was developing new lymph nodes behind his left ear, that selfcatheterization had become difficult because the sphincter was closed, and that Harper was 

concerned about testicular epididymitis. (Id.) In the “Plan Notes,” NP Udoko wrote 

“Nephrolithiasis – nephology consult request” and “Hodgkin’s lymph[o]ma – oncology 

consult request.” (Id. at 36.) 

On May 3, 2017, Harper saw NP Udoko again for a chronic care visit to address 

Hodgkin’s lymphoma and thyroid disorder. (Doc. 62 ¶ 5; Doc. 68 ¶ 5; Doc. 63 at 39.)

Harper reported that his Hodgkin lymphoma was in remission but he had developed 2

nodes behind his ear. (Doc. 63 at 39.) Harper reported weight loss (8 pounds in 10 days), 

night sweats, poor appetite, and nausea—for which he had medication that was helping. 
- 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

(Id.) Harper also reported that he was taking medication for his thyroid, but he was tired 

all the time, he could not work, and he could not take Ditropan (bladder relaxant) for his 

bladder situation because it caused blindness, and he requested non-duty status. (Id.) In 

the “Objective Notes,” Udoko noted “left mastoid – nodular tissue with swelling” and 

“enlarged nodes – cervical left greater than right with tenderness on palpation.” (Id. at 41.) 

Udoko requested an oncology consult. (Id. at 46.)

On June 26, 2017, Harper went to the Arizona Oncology Network for an oncology 

appointment with Dr. Sanueev Gopal. (Doc. 62 ¶ 6; Doc. 68 ¶ 6; Doc. 63 at 49–50.) Harper 

reported to Dr. Gopal that his Hodgkin’s lymphoma had been in remission since 2014, but

he began having symptoms three months ago and had lost 45 pounds in the last 6 months. 

(Doc. 63 at 49.) Dr. Gopal conducted a thorough exam and noted symptoms that included 

fatigue, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, headaches, new mastoid nodules and swollen lymph 

nodes in the left neck. (Id. at 50.) Dr. Gopal assessed Harper’s history of Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma and ordered a PET/CT for evaluation and staging; labs, including a complete 

blood count; and copies of Harper’s past treatment and chemo-radiation records from the 

Nevada medical center. (Id.) Dr. Gopal wrote that if a reoccurrence is confirmed, Harper 

will need a radiation oncology consult. (Id.) Dr. Gopal recommended “maximizing 

nutrition, due to weight loss.” (Id.) Lastly, Dr. Gopal ordered follow-up in 2 weeks “or as 

soon as possible with labs and PET/CT results.” (Id.)

On July 2, 2017, Harper submitted a Health Needs Request (HNR) asking to see a 

provider due to weight loss and swollen lymph nodes. (Doc. 63 at 96.) 

On July 5, 2017, Harper saw NP Udoko for a follow up from the off-site oncology 

appointment. (Doc. 62 ¶ 7; Doc. 68 ¶ 7.) NP Udoko noted the recommendations for an 

urgent PET/CT, labs tests, and a referral to radiation/oncology. (Doc. 63 at 52.) NP Udoko

also documented Harper’s reports of sharp, shooting pain from the left side of his neck 

radiating up the base of the skull. (Id.) Udoko ordered Codeine for the Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma, lab tests, and a chest x-ray, and he submitted a consult request for radiology. 

(Id. at 55–56.) 
- 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

On July 11, 2017, Harper’s catheter fell out, and the nurse on duty was unable to 

replace it. (Doc. 62 ¶ 8; Doc. 68 ¶ 8.) Harper was taken to the emergency room at Mercy 

Gilbert Medical Center. (Id.; Doc. 63 at 68.)

5

 The next day, Harper returned from Mercy 

Gilbert after placement of a Foley catheter, and he denied any pain or discomfort. (Doc. 63 

at 68.) That same day, NP Udoko submitted a consult request for radiology PET/CT scan, 

priority “urgent,” in light of the diagnosis of Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the June 26, 2017 

consult report from Dr. Gopal. (Id. at 83–84; Doc. 68-1 at 43.) 

On July 18, 2017, Harper saw Nurse Owiti for complaints of pain in the shaft of his 

penis and testicles, although he denied burning or irritation, blood in urine, or discharge. 

(Doc. 63 at 87.) The Plan Notes stated “will continue to monitor.” (Id. at 93.) 

Also on July 18, 2017, Corizon Utilization Management documented that the urgent 

request for a PET/CT scan, which NP Udoko submitted on July 12, was denied in lieu of 

“Alternative Treatment Recommended.” (Doc. 68-1 at 43.) There are no records or 

explanation for the denial, nor is there a record or documentation of the recommended 

alternative treatment. 

On July 25, 2017, Harper saw Dr. Rodney Stewart. Harper reported severe testicle 

and penile pain for 3-4 days and green-colored drainage from the tip of his penis, and he 

expressed concern about weight loss and painful neck lymph nodes. (Doc. 63 at 96.) A 

urinalysis dip indicated a urinary tract infection (UTI). (Id.) Dr. Stewart assessed 

urethritis/epididymitis and “Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; patient needs to follow up with 

oncology and obtain previously requested studies.” (Doc. 63 at 99.) Dr. Stewart prescribed 

Codeine/APAP (Tylenol 3) and antibiotics. (Id. at 102, 107; Doc. 62 ¶ 9; Doc. 68 ¶ 9.)

On August 2, 2017, an Incident Command System was called for a medical 

emergency after Harper tripped and his Foley catheter was pulled out. (Doc. 62 ¶ 10.) The 

responding nurse noted that Harper’s penis was red around the urethra, and there was 

brown/red urine in the leg bag. (Id.) Unsuccessful attempts were made at inserting two 

5 Defendants did not submit the medical records from Mercy Gilbert Medical Center 

for the July 11–12, 2017 hospital visit. (See Doc. 63.)
- 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

different catheters, and Harper suffered severe pain. (Id.) Harper was sent to Banner 

Baywood Hospital for catheter insertion. (Id.) Harper returned from the hospital that same 

day with a new Foley catheter secured with stat-lack, a special taping system. (Id.) The 

nurse documented in the medical record that a call was made to Dr. Johnson and a message 

was left to inform him of Harper’s return and that the hospital recommended antibiotics. 

(Doc. 63 at 124).6

On August 6, 2017, Harper was seen by Nurse Jessica Dixon after he submitted an 

HNR stating he was in massive pain in his lymph nodes and testicles and that he was still 

not on pain medications and antibiotics. (Id. at 131.) Dixon noted in the record that the 

hospital had ordered Macrobid 100 mg (an antibiotic). (Id. at 132.) Harper reported that 

his pain medication—Tylenol 3—ran out and he was still in a lot of pain and that he went 

to the nurse line on August 3, 2017, but nothing was done for him and he was told return 

on August 6. (Id.) Nurse Grafton issued an order for Ibuprofen for 60 days. (Id. at 141.)

On August 8, 2017, Harper saw Dr. Johnson for follow up regarding the Alternative 

Treatment Plan in place of the PET scan that had been requested twice. (Id. at 147.) Dr. 

Johnson wrote in the record that Harper asked for Gabapentin or Tramadol, but he told 

Harper that neither were indicated for lymphoma or chronic pain, so he offered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) instead, and Harper walked out of the exam 

room. (Id.) Harper asserts that he never asked for Gabapentin or Tramadol at this 

encounter, but instead requested a renewal of Tylenol 3. (Doc. 68 ¶ 11.) He asserts that 

Dr. Johnson became belligerent, at which point Harper walked out and filed an Inmate 

Grievance to the Medical Director about the incident. (Id.) 

In his Inmate Grievance, dated August 8, 2017, Harper wrote that he was grieving

Dr. Johnson’s unbecoming and unprofessional conduct at that day’s encounter. (Doc. 68, 

Ex. B (Doc. 68 at 4).) Harper wrote that he wanted to discuss all his medical issues, but 

Dr. Johnson told him he was there only “to figure out the fucking PET scan.” (Id.) Harper 

6 Defendants did not submit the hospital medical records from the August 2, 2017 

visit. (See Doc. 63.)
- 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

wrote that he tried to bring up his August 2 emergency room visit and he told Dr. Johnson 

that he was in severe, constant pain and needed his Tylenol 3 renewed, but Dr. Johnson 

continued to rudely tell him he was not being seen for that and that he “was not [Harper’s] 

fucking drug dealer.” (Id.) Harper documented that he then walked out of the office as 

Dr. Johnson continued to cuss at him. (Id.) 

On August 10, 2017, Harper saw Dr. Ngwube for a chronic care appointment to 

address Hodgkin’s lymphoma. (Doc. 63 at 154.) Dr. Ngwube documented Harper’s 

reports of weight loss and neck pain and history of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. (Id.) At this 

time, Harper—at 5 feet 11 inches tall—weighed 127 pounds. (Id. at 155.) Dr. Ngwube 

assessed emaciation and wrote “will determine if go straight to PET/CT with the [amount] 

of clinical findings we have thus far from both [patient] and past.” (Id. at 157.) Dr. 

Ngwube also wrote that, for Harper’s hyperthyroidism, “will get USG [ultrasound] the 

neck for further eval[uation] of the thyroid,” and that the ultrasound “may help us with 

possible other masses in the neck.” (Id.) Dr. Ngwube ordered prescriptions for Ibuprofen 

and Tylenol. (Id. at 158.)

On September 3, 2017, Harper filed two HNRs stating that he had a urinary tract 

infection and pain, and that his Foley catheter was overdue to be changed. (Id. at 172.) 

That same day, Harper was seen in medical by Nurse Jacob Bromberg, who noted that 

Harper was presenting after 30 days with the same Foley catheter from the August 2, 2017 

emergency room visit. (Id.) Bromberg noted the onset of a urinary tract infection with 

cloudy and odorous urine and complaints of testicular pain. (Id.) A urinalysis was positive 

for a UTI. (Id.) Bromberg documented that Harper was “educated on why medical on site 

could not change Foley [due to] troubles with reinsertion[,]” and that the provider was 

contacted and orders were given for antibiotics. (Id. at 180.)

Medical records reflect that on September 9, 2017, Harper reported to Nurse David 

Rodriguez that it was time to replace his Foley catheter. (Id. at 183.) The medical note 

documents that “due to reported [history], and Foley catheter intact, will refer to provider.” 

(Id. at 184, 189.) 
- 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

Medical records reflect that on September 15, 2017, Harper saw Nurse Nicole 

Schaffer for a Foley catheter change. (Id. at 192.) The medical note documents that the 

Foley catheter was changed and the procedure was tolerated well by the patient. (Id.) 

On September 20, 2017, Harper had an offsite urology appointment with Dr. Galaxy 

P. Shah, who performed a cystoscopy (an endoscopy of the urethra and bladder) and an 

“open SPT placement,” which involves inserting a suprapubic tube/catheter into the 

bladder through the lower abdomen. (Doc. 62 ¶ 16; Doc. 63 at 200–201.)7

On September 22, 2017, NP Gay submitted a routine urology consult request. 

(Doc. 63 at 202, 205.) 

On September 26, 2017, Harper had a radiology off site appointment for a PET/CT 

scan. (Id. at 209.)8 

On October 2, 2017, Harper saw NP Gay, who noted that the suggested labs and 

PET/CT scan were completed, and they were awaiting records. (Id. at 216.) NP Gay 

documented that Harper had lower quadrant discomfort without vomiting and a 45-pound 

weight loss. (Id.) The medical record for this date shows that the routine urology consult 

request submitted on September 22 was cancelled. (Id. at 220.) There is no documentation 

of the reason for the cancellation. Gay documented in the “Plan Notes” her assessment of 

“1. Non Hodgkin’s lymphoma, possible remission 2. Idiopathic neurogenic bladder and 

that suggested cystoscopy with supra pubic cath consultation sent 3. Pain management; 

will consider naproxen as needed for now.” (Id. at 221.)

Defendants assert that on October 4, 2017, NP Gay put in an order for Morphine 

Sulfate pain medication. (Doc. 62 ¶ 17.) But the medical record they cite for support 

shows that the Morphine Sulfate order was discontinued by NP Gay that same day. 

7 Defendants did not submit the results of the cystoscopy and the post-procedural 

instructions/orders from Dr. Shah. (See Doc. 63 at 201 (citing “Instructions” from Dr. Shah 

and stating that the orders were printed and “sent with guards”).) 

8 Defendants did not submit the medical records from the September 26, 2018 offsite 

radiology visit, nor did they submit the PET/CT scan results. (See Doc. 63.) 
- 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

(Doc. 63 at 227.)9 Similarly, Defendants assert that on October 9, 2017, a prescription for 

Ciprofloxacin HCL (an antibiotic) was added pursuant to a verbal order from NP Gay, but 

the medical record shows that the prescription was discontinued. (Doc. 62 ¶ 17; Doc. 63 

at 232.)

On October 18, 2017, medical staff changed the Foley catheter. (Doc. 63 at 249.) 

NP Gay documented that Harper had a pending urology procedure and that she reviewed 

the CAT scan results with Harper. (Id. at 252.)10

On October 23, 2017, Harper saw NP Gay for a chronic care visit, and she 

documented that his labs were within normal limits and his PET scan showed no 

lymphadenopathy (diseased or abnormal lymph nodes) of the chest, neck, abdomen or 

pelvis. (Id. at 255, 261.)11 NP Gay documented Harper’s abnormal weight loss of 35 

pounds over the last 6 months, and she documented a plan of care to add Naproxen for 

pain, drink three cans of Ensure a day, weekly weight checks, and labs every 90 days. (Id.

at 262–263.) The medication Oxybutynin (a bladder relaxant) was discontinued on this 

date. (Id. at 263.) 

On October 30, 2017, Harper saw Dr. Glen Babich to discuss the PET scan results. 

(Doc. 68 ¶¶ 19, 43.) Dr. Babich informed Harper that the PET scan showed abnormal 

9 Harper points out that the October 4, 2017 medical record reflects that the 

“Encounter Close Date” was July 11, 2018—nine months after the date of the encounter. 

(Doc. 68 ¶ 17; Doc. 63 at 223.) He argues that this and other medical records showing 

“Encounter Close Dates” that are days, months, and in one case 2 years after the subject 

encounter raise questions as to the authenticity of the medical records because medical staff 

could back date entries. (Doc. 68 ¶ 17.) Harper submits the copy of a December 19, 2018 

letter written by Rita Lomio, an attorney with the Prison Law Office, which represented 

the plaintiffs in Parsons v. Ryan, CV 12-00601-ROS. (Doc. 68, Ex. M (Doc. 68-2 at 30).) 

Ms. Lomio wrote the letter to defense counsel regarding Harper’s need for medical care, 

and the letter identifies specific instances of back dated changes to some of Harper’s 

medical records. (Id. (Doc. 68-2 at 31–33).) In failing to file a reply in support of their 

Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants do not explain the difference in the actual 

encounter dates and “Encounter Close Dates,” nor do they deny that some of Harper’s 

medical record entries were back dated.

10 Defendants did not submit any CAT scan results. (See Doc. 63.)

11 Defendants did not submit the PET scan results or the radiology report from the 

PET scan. (See Doc. 63.)
- 12 -

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

spinal imaging, that Harper’s cancer was spreading into the bone, and that he needed an 

immediate consult with oncology. (Id. ¶ 43.) This same date, Dr. Babich documented in 

a “Consultation Request Action” form that Harper’s scan showed “abnormal spinal 

imaging” and that Harper “needs to follow up with oncology. Site provider to schedule 

oncology consult.” (Doc. 68-1 at 42.)12 

On November 8, 2017, Harper was seen in medical due to his Foley catheter slipping 

and the need to hold it in place. (Doc. 63 at 266.) The Foley catheter was changed. 

(Id. at 267.) 

On November 12, 2017, Levofloxacin (an antibiotic) was ordered due to a positive 

urine culture. (Id. at 276, 279–280.) On November 16, 2017, Harper saw NP Gay for a 

possible UTI, and he reported brown urine and discomfort. (Id. at 282.) The plan of care 

was to stop Levofloxacin; add Nitrofurantoin (an antibiotic), a topical cream, and a sulfide 

shampoo; and set up a plan for further catheter changes. (Id. at 287.) 

On November 27, 2017, Harper was taken to Maricopa Integrated Health Services 

for a suprapubic catheter placement outpatient surgery, which was performed by Dr. Shah. 

(Doc. 68 ¶ 44; Doc. 68, Ex. ZZ, Harper Decl. (Doc. 68-3 at 86).) Dr. Shah prescribed 

NORCO (acetaminophen and hydrocodone) and Senna tablets (a laxative) following the 

surgery. Upon his return to the prison, however, Harper was given Tylenol 3 instead, and 

Docusate (a laxative) was ordered. Harper never received the medication. (Doc. 68 ¶ 21.) 

The post-operative directions instructed Harper to return in 4 weeks for follow up with Dr. 

Shah, removal of sutures, and the first suprapubic catheter change, and to return every 4

weeks thereafter for suprapubic catheter changes. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 44; Doc. 68, Ex. ZZ, Harper 

12 Neither the medical record of the October 30, 2017 encounter with Dr. Babich, 

nor the October 30, 2017 Consultation Request Action form were provided by Defendants. 

(See Doc. 63.) Nor were these records provided to Harper during discovery despite his 

specific request to defense counsel for “the complete medical record and consultation 

request action from 10-30-2017 by Dr. Glen Babich.” (Doc. 68-1 at 45; Doc. 68-2 at 42.) 

Defendants’ written response to Harper’s request was that they sent him his relevant 

medical records, and if the October 30, 2017 record existed, it should be within the medical 

records already sent to him. (Doc. 68-2 at 42.) Harper obtained the October 30, 2017 

Consultation Request Action form from attorney Ms. Lomio and submitted it with his 

Response to Defendants’ Statement of Facts. (Doc. 68 ¶¶ 19, 43; Doc. 68-1 at 42.) 
- 13 -

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

Decl.)13 

On December 4, 2017, Harper was seen for a catheter dressing change and he 

complained of pain. (Doc. 63 at 306.) Nurse Litten noted odor when the bandage was 

removed and green/yellow pus-like fluid around the incision site. (Id.) Dr. Johnson was 

notified, and Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic) and Codeine/APAP were added. (Id. at 306, 

310.)

On December 14, 2017, Harper saw Nurse Emily Gant for a Foley catheter dressing 

change. (Id. at 314.) Harper complained of severe abdominal pain, and he reported that 

the catheter was not draining. (Doc. 63 at 314–315.) Upon removal of the dressing, there 

was a foul odor and brown-yellow drainage covering the previous dressing and catheter 

insertion site. (Id. at 315.) The opening of the catheter was cleaned, and it was noted that 

the stoma was light pink and moist and there were obvious signs and symptoms of 

infection. (Id.) Harper was using a leg strap that medical had given him to hold the catheter 

in place, and, since the catheter was not draining, the strap was loosened and lowered, 

which facilitated proper drainage flow of urine through the tubing. (Id. at 316; Doc. 68 

¶ 23.) Nurse Gant telephoned the on-call provider regarding Harper’s pain and status, and 

the provider gave verbal orders for one tablet of Tylenol 3 and IV fluids, after which Harper 

reported relief and was sent back to his cell. (Doc. 63 at 316, 321.) 

On December 27, 2017, Harper submitted an HNR stating that he was supposed to 

return to Dr. Shah for removal of his stitches, and he requested to be sent to the urologist 

for removal of the stitches or he would remove them himself “since medical will not do 

anything for infection around the stitches.” (Doc. 68-2 at 47.) 

On January 3, 2018, Harper was seen by NP Gay for a catheter change, even though 

Dr. Shah had ordered that Harper return to the urologist for a catheter change. (Doc. 63 at 

340, 343; Doc. 68 ¶ 30.) Harper’s urine tested positive for possible infection, and he was 

13 Defendants did not submit the medical records from the November 27, 2017 offsite visit and procedure by Dr. Shah. (See Doc. 63.) Harper was not provided Dr. Shah’s 

report and consultation record upon request; Defendants informed him that these records 

do not exist. (Doc. 68, Ex. ZZ, Harper Decl. (Doc. 68-3 at 88).) 
- 14 -

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

prescribed Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic) for three days. (Doc. 63 at 344–345.) 

The following day, around 8:30 p.m., an ICS was activated after Harper complained 

of severe abdominal pain and pressure in his groin. (Id. at 347.) Harper was brought to 

medical, and he reported that his pain had begun the day after his catheter was changed. 

(Id. at 348.) The dressing was removed, and there was a foul odor present and 

brown/yellow drainage. The catheter opening was cleansed, and it was noted that the stoma 

was light pink and there were obvious signs and symptoms of infection. (Id. at 349.) 

Harper also complained that the catheter bag was not draining. (Id.) He had his catheter 

bag tied below the medical strap that medical had issued to him, and the bag was twisted. 

(Id.; Doc. 68 ¶ 26.) The bag was loosened and lowered to facilitate proper drainage flow. 

(Doc. 63 at 349.) The provider was called, and verbal orders were given for a one-time 

dose of Toradol (brand name for Ketorolac, an NSAID for pain) and IV fluids, after which 

Harper reported relief. (Id.) 

On January 4, 2018, Harper submitted an Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution

stating that he had a suprapubic catheter placed by a urologist on November 27, 2018, after 

which he developed complications, but medical staff failed to adequately treat the 

complications and infection and they discontinued his pain medication despite severe, 

excruciating pain that limits his mobility and affects his sleep and appetite. (Doc. 68-2 at 

48.) Harper wrote that medical staff also discontinued his medication to treat bladder 

spasms, and they failed to return Harper for a four-week follow up as ordered by the 

urologist. (Id.) Harper complained that only a physician was supposed to change his 

catheter, yet a nurse did so on January 3, and he has since suffered severe spasms and

burning in his bladder. (Id. at 49.)14

14 On April 5, 2018, three months after submitting his Inmate Informal Complaint 

Resolution, Harper received a response from Nurse C. Hawley, which informed him not to 

send informal complaints to the Health Unit for a response and that informal complaints 

must go to the CO III for a timely response. (Doc. 68-2 at 48.) Harper avers that he 

submitted his Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution to the CO III. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 45.) 

Further, under the ADC grievance procedures, if an Informal Complaint Resolution relates 

to a medical issue, “[t]he Contract Facility Director of Nursing shall respond to the 

Informal Complaint within 15 workdays using the Inmate Informal Complaint Response 
- 15 -

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

On January 5, 2018, NP Gay gave a verbal order for another Ketorolac dose, and it 

was noted that Harper was to follow up with the provider the next day. There was no 

follow up. (Id. at 359, 362–363.) 

On January 7, 2018, Harper had an unscheduled sick call visit in the medical clinic 

with Nurse Litten, to whom he reported severe, constant and extreme pain and spasms in 

his bladder. (Id. at 365.) The provider was called, and a verbal order for a one-time dose 

of Ketorolac was given. (Id. at 366.) The Plan Notes indicated a referral to the provider 

for further evaluation. (Id. at 372.) The following day, NP Gay ordered another dose of

Ketorolac and a one-day prescription for Phenazopyridine (a pain reliever for the lower 

part of urinary tract). (Id. at 375, 379.) 

On January 8, 2018, Harper submitted another HNR informing medical that he had 

severe, constant, and extreme pain/spasms in his bladder. (Doc. 68-2 at 52.)

On January 9, 2018, just after midnight, an ICS was initiated due to Harper 

experiencing bladder spasms and pain in the bladder. (Id. at 382.) Nurse Tyleana Vinson 

documented that Harper reported pain at a 7/10 level, that traces of blood were in the urine, 

and that the catheter bag had brown colored urine. (Id. at 383.) A new order for Tylenol 

was issued. (Id. at 383, 388.) Later that day, around 4:00 p.m., NP Natalya Weigel 

submitted a routine consult request for Harper to see the urologist. (Id. at 396, 400.) Harper 

had not seen the urologist since his November 27, 2017 surgery despite the specialist’s 

order that Harper was to return for follow up 4 weeks after the procedure. (Doc. 68 ¶ 28.)

Also on January 9, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR to medical stating he had severe 

pain to the suprapubic tube and requested that it be removed. (Doc. 68-1 at 73.) Harper 

received a response to the HNR two days later, and he was informed that the provider will 

discuss a plan of care. (Id.) At about 6:00 p.m. on January 9, 2018, Harper went to medical 

complaining of bladder pain. (Doc. 63 at 402.) Nurse Weigel noted that he was treated for 

reoccurring UTIs a couple times in the past month, and that he requested Tylenol 3 tablets. 

form.” See ADC Department Order 802, Inmate Grievance Procedure, §§ 2.0, 2.3.3.1, 

https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/policies/800/0802 032519.pdf (last visited Jan. 

7, 2020).
- 16 -

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

(Id.) Weigle ordered Augmentin/amoxicillin twice a day for 2 weeks. (Id. at 406–407).

On January 17, 2018, Harper saw Dr. James Baird for a chronic care visit to address 

Hodgkin’s lymphoma and possible hyperthyroidism. (Id. at 410.) Dr. Baird assessed 

“Hodgkin’s lymphoma, last PET scan neg[ative;] likely hyperthyroidism with 

tachycardia.” (Id. at 416.) This appears to refer to the same PET scan that Dr. Babich had 

reported showed abnormal spinal imaging. (See Doc. 67 at 6.) Dr. Baird ordered a 

prescription for Methimazole (an antithyroid agent), ordered labs, and discontinued 

Propranolol (a beta blocker). (Doc. 63 at 417–418.) 

On January 19, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR stating that he had severe pain in 

his testicles and the suprapubic tube and asked for the tube to be removed. (Doc. 68, PSOF 

¶ 47.)

On January 26, 2018, Harper had an offsite visit with Dr. Shah, the urologist. 

(Doc. 62 ¶ 30; Doc. 68 ¶ 30.)15 Dr. Shah recommended that Harper return every 4 weeks 

for a Foley catheter change. (Doc. 62 ¶ 30.) Dr. Shah also recommended an ultrasound of 

the testicles and scrotum, and he ordered the following medications: NORCO (pain 

medication), Colace (stool softener), Nitrofurantoin (an antibiotic), Codeine/APAP, and 

Oxybutynin. (Id.; Doc. 68 ¶ 30; Doc. 63 at 426.) None of the recommended medications 

were initially ordered. (Doc. 68 ¶ 30; see Doc. 63 at 425.) Upon his return to the prison, 

it was noted that Harper requested the pain medication recommended by the urologist. 

(Doc. 63 at 428.) The records show that a four-day prescription for Tylenol 3 was ordered. 

(Id. at 432.) 

On January 31, 2018, Harper was seen by NP Weigel, who documented that Harper 

appeared to be in pain with mild shaking and teariness to eyes. (Id. at 434.) She noted the 

catheter stoma appeared reddened with scant cream-colored drainage. (Id.) Weigel

ordered that Harper be given supplies weekly for dressing changes and that Tylenol 3 for 

30 days be added. (Id. at 438.) 

15 Defendants did not submit Dr. Shah’s medical record for the January 26, 2018 

visit. (Doc. 68 ¶ 30; see Doc. 63.) 
- 17 -

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

On February 1, 2018, Harper was seen in medical by NP Weigel for urology follow 

up and he reported that the pain medication was not working. (Id. at 441.) He was told to 

use antibacterial soap to clean the stoma every day, split gauze as dressing around the 

catheter daily, and to keep the skin around the catheter site cool and dry. (Id. at 446–447.) 

On February 7, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR informing medical that his 

suprapubic incision discharge was heavier. There was no response to the HNR. (Doc. 68, 

PSOF ¶ 49; Doc. 68-2 at 58.) This same day he also submitted an Inmate Informal 

Complaint Resolution stating that he was being denied dressing changes, medications, and 

antibiotics. (Doc. 68-2 at 60.)16

On February 8, 2018, Harper was seen by NP Weigel for a physical assessment and 

scrotum examination pursuant to a request by the Corizon Utilization Management team. 

(Id. at 448.) Harper reported a concern about a painful abscess on his left calf. (Id.) Weigel 

noted that there was no swelling in the testicles, but there was a palpable and movable mass 

in the epididymis (the duct/tube at the back of the testis) that was tender to touch. (Id.) 

Weigel assessed a carbuncle on the limb and a hydrocele. (Id. at 449, 451.)17 Weigel 

ordered Cephalexin (an antibiotic) for one week. (Id. at 452–453.)

On February 11, 2018, Harper submitted another Inmate Informal Complaint 

Resolution stating that he was denied supplies needed for his suprapubic catheter. 

(Doc. 68-2 at 62.)18

16 Nurse C. Hawley responded to this Informal Complaint Resolution on April 5, 

2018, and informed Harper that informal complaints should go to the CO III for processing. 

(Doc. 68-2 at 60.) See supra n.15.

17 A carbuncle is a cluster of boils that form a connected area of infection under the 

skin; a carbuncle can cause a deeper and more severe infection that a single boil. See Boils 

and carbuncles – Symptoms, Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseasesconditions/boils-and-carbuncles/symptoms-causes/syc-20353770 (last visited Jan. 7, 

2020). A hydrocele is a type of swelling in the scrotum that occurs when fluid collects in 

the thin sheath surrounding a testicle. See Hydrocele – Overview, Mayo Clinic, https://

www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hydrocele/symptoms-causes/syc-20363969 (last 

visited Jan. 7, 2020). 

18 Harper submitted his February 11, 2018 Informal Complaint Resolution to a CO 

III. On April 5, 2018, he received a response informing him that he should submit his 

informal complaints to his CO III for prompt processing. (Doc. ¶ 68, PSOF ¶ 51; Doc. 68-
- 18 -

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

On February 2, 2018, Harper presented to medical for follow up related to his 

suprapubic catheter, bladder spasms, and pain. (Doc. 63 at 456.) He saw NP Weigel, who 

issued a prescription for Nitrofurantoin Mono (for UTI). (Id. at 460–461.)

On February 27, 2018, Harper saw NP Weigel in medical for a suprapubic catheter 

change, despite Dr. Shah’s order that Harper return to the urologist every 4 weeks for 

catheter changes. (Id. at 463; Doc. 68 ¶ 30; see Doc. 67 at 6.) The last catheter change had 

been January 3, 2018, so the February 27 catheter change was approximately 23 days 

overdue. (See Doc. 63 at 340, 343.)

On March 27, 2018, Harper went to medical and showed the nurse that his 

suprapubic site was bleeding heavily and he was bleeding through his boxers and t-shirt. 

(Id.) He was told that if the bleeding continues to file an HNR to be seen on the Nurse 

Line. (Id. at 76–77.) Later that evening, other prisoners escorted Harper to medical due to 

the continued bleeding from the suprapubic site. (Id. at 77.) A couple of sergeants then 

escorted Harper into the medical lobby and telephoned a nurse at another facility because 

there was no on-site night nurse at Harper’s facility. (Id.) The sergeants were told that if 

the blood was not in the urinary bag, it was not serious, and to send Harper back to his cell 

with directions to submit an HNR to medical the next day. (Id.) 

On April 6, 2018, Harper’s suprapubic catheter site was bleeding heavily and 

draining green discharge, so he walked to medical where NP Weigel saw him and asked 

why the site was not covered. Harper explained that he had been denied supplies. (Id. at 

79–80; Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 57.) NP Weigel informed the nurses on duty that Harper was not 

to be denied supplies and that his site is to be covered at all times. (Id.) The suprapubic 

site was cleaned and dressing was placed on it. (Id.) 

On April 10, 2018, Harper saw NP Weigel and reported that infection symptoms 

and his pain had worsened. Harper was told to continue with the current medication 

regimen. (Doc. 68-1 at 83.) During this encounter, Harper asked Weigel about the status 

of the ultrasound that Dr. Shah had recommended and for which Weigel had submitted a 

2 at 62.) 
- 19 -

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

consult request months before. Weigel informed Harper that the consult request was 

denied on the basis that it was determined not to be a necessity. (Id. at 83–84.)19

On April 12, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR stating that he still had green, thick 

pus discharge, that his incision opening was puffy and swollen, and that he had severe pain. 

(Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 61.) 

On April 17, 2018, Harper went to medical around 10:30 a.m. after another prisoner 

pulled out his catheter. (Doc. 68-1 at 88.) NP Gay changed Harper’s suprapubic catheter; 

the last catheter change had been February 27, 2018, so the catheter change was 

approximately 26 days overdue. (Id. at 89; Doc. 63 at 476; Doc. 67 at 6.) NP Gay used a 

different type of catheter—a “straight cath” instead of a “French Codex”—and the insertion 

was severely painful and resulted in pain so severe that Harper could not walk. (Doc. 68-

1 at 89.) The medical record documented “acute pain,” and Harper was prescribed a twoday prescription for Ciprofloxacin HCL (an antibiotic) and ice. (Id.; Doc. 63 at 479–480.)

On April 19, 2018, Harper was transferred to Special Management Unit (SMU) I. 

(Doc. 68-1 at 90.) Although Harper had SNOs for no stairs, a lower bunk, daily showers, 

and supplies, he was assigned to a top tier cell and a top bunk, he was denied a daily shower, 

and he did not receive any supplies to clean or cover the suprapubic site. (Id. at 91.) Nor 

was Harper provided with his medical diet. (Id.) 

On April 21, 2018, Harper received a shower. (Id.) At this time, he was coughing 

19 Defendants did not submit the medical record for the April 10, 2018 encounter. 

(See Doc. 63.) 

Defendants submitted a medical record dated April 11, 2018, which included a note 

by Nurse Roberta Box stating that Harper came to medical to ask if he could get his Tylenol 

3 dose early that day due to bladder pain, but per NP Weigel, he was told to wait until the 

scheduled medication time. (Doc. 63 at 474.) Box also wrote that Harper declined 

Ibuprofen and that he left and then returned with his other medications and said he was not 

going to take any of his medications anymore. (Id.) Harper confirms that he requested to 

receive his pain medication two hours early that day, and NP Weigel denied his request. 

(Doc. 68-1 at 84.) But Harper did not return his medications as noted in the record. (Doc. 

68 ¶ 33.) Harper submits copies of relevant ADC policies providing that had he returned 

his prescribed medications as noted by Nurse Box, a refusal for medication form would 

have been required to be completed, and Harper would have been subject to a disciplinary 

ticket. (Id., citing Ex. D (ADC Dep’t Order 1101, §§ 1101.3, 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.7.1.1), Ex. E 

(Refusal to Submit to Treatment Form), and Ex. K (ADC Dep’t Order 803, § 6.0).) 
- 20 -

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

up blood daily, suffering worsening night sweats, discharging green pus at the suprapubic 

site, and he still had not received medical supplies or his Ensure supplements. (Id.) Harper 

requested HNR forms, but they were not available. (Id.) In the following days, his

symptoms worsened, and he still did not receive any supplies, his medical diet, or his 

Ensure, nor did he receive daily showers. (Id.) 

On April 24, 2018, Harper saw NP Siji Thomas. He reported that he was on 

antibiotics for chronic UTIs, but he was not currently getting the antibiotic medication. 

(Doc. 63 at 484.) At this encounter, Harper’s weight was documented at 120 pounds. (Id.) 

NP Thomas assessed a UTI and suspected infection at the suprapubic catheter site. (Id. at 

487.) NP Thomas issued a two-week prescription for Ciprofloxacin HCL, swabbed the 

catheter site, and ordered follow up in 4 weeks. (Id. at 488–489.) Thomas also ordered 

showers, supplies, and Ensure three times a day. (Doc. 68-1 at 92.) The lab culture tested 

positive for MRSA (resistant Staphylococcus aureus). (Doc. 63 ¶ 35 (in part); Doc. 68 

¶ 35.) 

Despite the order for showers, Harper still did not get a daily shower from April 24 

to April 28, 2018, nor did he receive medical supplies or his medical diet and Ensure

supplements. (Doc. 68-1 at 93–94.) He finally received a shower on April 29, 2018, but 

no supplies. (Id. at 95.)

On April 30, 2018, Nursing Director Tanna Gualco issued a verbal order for 

Sulfameth-Trimeth (or Bactrim, an antibiotic), presumably to treat the MRSA infection. 

(Doc. 63 at 491, 495, 505.) But Harper is allergic to this medication—it is listed on his 

allergy list, and Harper explained that he is allergic to it. (Doc. 68-1 at 95.) 

From May 1 to May 3, 2018, Harper did not receive medical supplies. (Doc. 68, 

PSOF ¶ 74.) 

On May 4, 2018, Harper submitted an Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution to 

grieve Corizon’s denial of the ultrasound that had been recommended by Dr. Shah. He 

requested a second decision or an explanation as to why the ultrasound was denied. 

(Doc. 68-2 at 78.)
- 21 -

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

Harper was not given any medical supplies from May 5 through May 9, 2018, at 

which time he received limited supplies. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 76.) Thereafter, he did not 

receive medical supplies, he received periodic showers, and his catheter was not changed 

until June 5, 2018, when the catheter became fully dislodged while Harper was climbing 

the ladder to his bunk. (Doc. 68-1 at 99–107.) On June 5, 2018, a nurse changed the 

suprapubic catheter/tube and applied dressing to the site. (Id. at 107.) The last catheter 

change had been April 17, 2018 – the catheter change was approximately 19 days overdue. 

(Doc. 63 at 476.) Harper was told he would be on suicide watch for 24 hours pursuant to 

an order by NP Thomas, and Harper was placed in a medical cell. (Doc. 68-1 at 107; Doc. 

63 at 511.) The medical note documented that the medical watch was to make sure Harper 

did not pull out the catheter. (Doc. 63 at 511.) Harper was kept in the medical suicide 

watch cell until 4:00 p.m. on June 8, 2018, at which time he finally received a shower. 

(Doc. 68-1 at 107–108.) 

From May 21 to June 22, 2018, Harper did not receive any medical supplies, and he 

received only 10 showers, despite the ongoing infection at the suprapubic site, continued 

green pus drainage, and worsening pain. (Id. at 112; Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 78.) 

On June 22, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR stating that he had granulated tissue 

around the suprapubic site and daily movements were painful. (Doc. 68-2 at 82.) He was 

seen the following day in medical, and the incision was cleaned and he received a dressing 

change. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 79.) 

On June 27, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR to the nursing supervisor asking to 

speak with her about the denial of daily showers despite his SNO, and about the denial of 

daily dressing changes. (Doc. 68-3 at 1.) 

From June 28 to July 11, 2018, Harper received only 8 showers and 4 dressing 

changes, and by July 11, 2018, he was 8 days overdue for a catheter change. (Doc. 68, 

PSOF ¶ 82.) 

On July 12, 2018, Harper saw NP Gay, who discontinued his Tylenol 3 pain 

medication even though the prescription, written by NP Weigel, was valid until October 22, 
- 22 -

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

2018. (Id. ¶ 83.) NP Gay substituted Motrin. (Doc. 68-3 at 6.) That same day, Harper 

wrote an Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution directed to Director Ryan and Director of 

Medical Richard Pratt. Harper complained about NP Gay’s discontinuation of pain 

medication. (Id.) Harper also complained that ever since Dr. Shah had placed the 

suprapubic tube catheter, it had never been changed on time, and currently he was 10 days 

overdue for a catheter change. (Id.) Harper explained that despite medical orders for daily 

dressing changes, he had only had 2 dressing changes in 3 weeks. (Id.) 

Harper wrote a second Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution on July 12, 2018, 

directed to Deputy Warden Kimble, in which he wrote that in March 2018 he had attempted 

to resolve this problem with ADC Director Ryan and Warden Thompson – specifically, the 

problem of inadequate medical care. (Id. at 3.) Harper explained that he is currently 

suffering an MRSA infection and Corizon has taken him off pain medication, and he is not 

receiving daily dressing changes and timely catheter changes. (Id. at 3–4.) Harper wrote 

that he is in fear of his organs shutting down, and he requested assistance from the Deputy 

Warden in contacting the Medical Director and addressing the negligence and lack of pain 

medications. (Id. at 4.) 

On July 13, 2018, Harper wrote an Inmate Letter directed to Director Ryan and 

Medical Director Richard Pratt stating that it is their responsibility to ensure that Corizon 

provides adequate healthcare and that Harper is currently being denied medications, 

catheter changes, and dressings, and he asked that the situation be addressed. (Id. at 8.) 

On July 15, 2018, Harper submitted an HNR stating that his suprapubic catheter “is 

hurting really bad and bleeding[,] daily movements and walking hurts,” and he requested

removal of the suprapubic tube. (Id. at 11.) 

Between July 15 and August 5, 2018, Harper received only 4 dressing changes. 

(Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 86.) 

On August 6, 2018, in response to an HNR complaining that the antibiotics were 

not working, Harper saw Nurse Tress Goff, who changed the catheter. This catheter change 

was 36 days overdue. (Id. ¶ 87; Doc. 68-1 at 128; Doc. 63 at 538, 545.) Nurse Goff noted 
- 23 -

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

that the suprapubic area was red with purulent discharge, and a verbal order for a one-week 

prescription of Minocycline (an antibiotic) was issued. The record shows that this

medication order was discontinued at the pharmacy. (Doc. 63 at 544–545.) 

From August 8 to August 17, 2018, Harper submitted 5 HNRs requesting to see the 

urologist and complaining of “constant,” “severe,” and “extreme pain” and spasms. 

(Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 88; Doc. 68-3 at 13–17.) In the following weeks, Harper filed a couple 

Inmate Informal Complaint Resolutions complaining about the denials of Ensure and daily 

showers—even though he had blood and urine on his linen and clothing. (Doc. 68-3 at 20–

21.) 

On August 29, 2018, Harper was transferred from SMU I to the Cook Unit. (Id. at 

19.) The next day, Harper submitted an HNR stating that he had pain at his catheter site, 

that he needed pain medication renewed, that his infection was worsening, that he had 

green pus and was bleeding, and that he was in constant, extreme, and severe pain. (Id. at 

24.) 

From September 1 to September 22, 2018, Harper submitted 9 HNRs informing 

medical that he was in severe and extreme pain, he was overdue for a catheter change, he 

had continuous bleeding, his testicles were swollen, and his infection was worsening. (Id.

at 26–34; Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 90.)

On September 17, 2018, NP Thomas conducted a culture swab of the suprapubic 

site-wound and discharge. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 90; Doc. 68-3 at 46.) The culture results, 

dated September 22, 2018, were positive for MRSA and reported “heavy growth” of 

MRSA, and recommended contact precaution. (Doc. 68-3 at 41.) The medical records 

document that NP Thomas was notified of this result on September 24, 2018, and upon 

review, he noted in the record that Harper was to be seen by a provider “ASAP.” (Id. at 

42.) 

Meanwhile, on September 19, 2018, Harper went to medical due to continuous 

blood in his urine, bleeding from the catheter site, and worsening infection. (Id. at 48.) 

Harper was told that medical does not take walk-ins, even though he showed medical staff 
- 24 -

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

his bloody urinary drainage bag and his blood-soaked dressing pad. (Id.) As he was 

leaving, Lieutenant Laux inquired as to Harper’s condition. After Harper explained the 

encounter with medical, Laux insisted that due to the blood, this was a safety and security 

issue, and he instructed officers to keep Harper in the medical unit and if the nurse and NP 

would not see Harper, the officers were to immediately activate an ICS to force medical to 

see Harper. (Id.)

20

 

In the month of October, Harper submitted 3 HNRs about his chronic conditions 

and informed medical that he had bladder pain, he had bleeding and green discharge, his 

suprapubic site was still infected, he had excruciating pain, his pain medication needed to 

be renewed, and his testicles were swollen. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 91; Doc. 68-3 at 55–57.) 

From October 2 to October 19, 2018, Harper filed 4 grievances in which he complained 

about medical’s failure to renew his pain medication, medical staff’s refusal to see Harper 

or provide sufficient treatment when they did see him, and the policies set up by Director 

Ryan that led to inadequate care. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 91; Doc. 68-3 at 50–53.) 

On October 25, 2018, Harper saw Dr. Stewart, who assessed chronic cystitis

(inflammation of bladder), Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lack of follow up as recommended, 

and a neurogenic bladder and need for urology follow up. (Doc. 63 at 548, 552.)21 Dr. 

Stewart ordered urgent consult requests for oncology and for radiology; specifically, an 

MRI, ultrasound, and CAT scan. (Id. at 554.) He also ordered a routine consult request 

for urology. (Id.) Dr. Stewart documented in the Plan Notes “restart Ditropan [bladder 

relaxant][;] oncology appointment with Ironwood Cancer Center[;] urology follow up[;] 

20 Defendants did not submit any of Harper’s medical records for the period between 

August 6 to October 25, 2018. Therefore, it is not clear from the record what, if any 

treatment, Harper received during this time and, specifically, what treatment he received 

on September 19, 2018. (See Doc. 63.) 

21 In December 2018, Ms. Lomio from the Prison Law Office began advocating for 

Harper’s medical care, and in two letters to Director Ryan’s counsel, one dated 

December 7, 2018, and one dated December 19, 2018, Ms. Lomio quoted portions of Dr. 

Stewart’s notes from the October 25, 2018 medical record. (Doc. 68-2 at 28–29, 31.) In 

the medical records submitted with Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, it appears 

that these portions of the October 25, 2018 medical record have been slightly altered. 

(Compare Doc. 63 at 548, 552 with Doc. 68-2 at 28–29, 31.) 
- 25 -

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

U/A . . . [;] labs, . . . abdominal U/S [ultrasound] to include the bladder, kidneys, and 

testicles.” (Id.)

22

 

On November 21 and 25, 2018, Harper submitted HNRs informing medical that his 

catheter changer was 7 days overdue. (Doc. 68, PSOF ¶ 92; Doc. 68-3 at 59–60.)

On December 7, 2018, attorney Ms. Lomio wrote a letter to Director Ryan’s counsel 

on Harper’s behalf, informing counsel that Dr. Stewart’s October 25, 2018 urgent request 

for oncology consult was not referred to Corizon Utilization Management for review until 

almost a month later. (Doc. 68-2 at 28.) She also wrote that Dr. Stewart’s request for a 

urology consult was not sent to Corizon Utilization Management for review until 

November 29, 2018, and that neither the oncology consult nor the requested urology 

consult had occurred. (Id. at 29.) Ms. Lomio requested that Harper immediately be seen 

by an oncologist and urologist and that he receive all appropriate follow-up care. (Id.)

On December 19, 2018, Ms. Lomio wrote another letter to Director Ryan’s counsel. 

(Id. at 30.) This letter informed counsel that Harper was last seen by an oncologist on 

June 26, 2017—541 days ago. (Id.) Ms. Lomio quoted that oncologist’s note that Harper 

had a history of Hodgkin’s lymphoma and was currently exhibiting serious symptoms and 

that he “will need PET/CT for evaluation and staging . . . if reoccurrence is confirmed, 

[patient] will need a radiation oncology consult,” and to follow up in “2 weeks or as soon 

as possible with labs and PET/CT results.” (Id.) Ms. Lomio pointed out that 486 days 

later, on October 25, 2018, Dr. Stewart submitted an urgent oncology consult request and 

noted that Harper had not seen an oncologist since that June 2017 visit. (Id. at 31.) Finally, 

Ms. Lomio noted that although the medical records showed that Harper received a PET/CT 

scan in September 2017, which resulted in a report of “abnormal spine images – needs to 

follow up with oncology,” no oncology consult was thereafter requested or scheduled. (Id.

22 Defendants assert that on November 23, 2018, Harper was seen off-site for an 

ultrasound of the bladder and that there were no significant findings. (Doc. 62 ¶ 38.) But 

the exhibit cited in support of this assertion is the October 25, 2018 medical record of the 

encounter with Dr. Stewart. (Id., citing “Exhibit LL.”) The Court finds no record of any 

appointment or procedure on November 23, 2018, and no record of any ultrasound results. 

(See Doc. 63.) 
- 26 -

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

at 33.) Ms. Lomio requested that Ryan’s counsel ensure Harper immediately be seen by 

an oncologist and urologist and receive all appropriate follow-up care. (Id. at 34.)23

On December 22, 2018, Harper saw Nurse Susan Jensen in response to an HNR and 

he reported increasing testicular pain, new lymph nodes in his neck and groin, and 

worsening Hodgkin’s symptoms. (Doc. 63 at 557.) The Nurse referred Harper to a 

provider. (Id. at 564.)

On January 2, 2019, Harper saw NP Hahn, who noted a hard nodule on the right 

testicle with swelling, a posterior small pea size nodule on the left cervical chain of 

Harper’s neck, and testicular pain. (Id. at 570, 574.) NP Hahn submitted an urgent consult 

request for an ultrasound of the testicles and scrotum, and he noted that “CAT scan of 

bilateral cervical neck consult[s] have been placed f[or] review of UTM [Utilization 

Management] Committee.” (Id. at 576.)24 

On January 8, 2019, Harper underwent a wound culture swab. (Doc. 68-3 at 64.) 

On January 16, 2019, he submitted an Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution complaining 

that he had not yet been informed of the results from this culture. (Id.) Harper filed a 

second Informal Complaint complaining that the oncology consult requested by Dr. 

Stewart was cancelled without reason. (Id. at 65.) And he filed a third Informal Complaint 

complaining that the urology consult was required to be scheduled within 60 days of Dr. 

23 Ms. Lomio’s December 19, 2018 letter also expressed concern over “apparent and 

unexplained changes” made to Harper’s medical record since her review of the record on 

December 7, 2019. (Doc. 68-2 at 30–33.) Ms. Lomio pointed out the changes that 

appeared in the medical record, and she requested that defense counsel provide an 

explanation for the backdated changes. (Id. at 31–34.) 

24 Harper submitted the copy of January 4, 2019 letter he received from Ms. Lomio, 

who informed him that she reviewed his medical record and, according to the record, NP 

Hahn submitted an urgent radiology consult request on January 2, 2019, with the following 

comments quoted from the medical record: “USN [ultrasound] OF SCROTUM 

TESTICLES AND BILATERAL CERVICLE C[HAIN] LARGE FIRM NODULE FIXED 

ON EXAMINATION TO LEFT CERVICLE AREA NECK PLEASE EVALUATE THIS 

WITH CAT SCAN PLEASE HX [history] OF MALIGNANT LYMPHOMA SEE HIS 

NOTES AS WELL PLEASE.” (Doc. 68-2 at 37.) These comments do not appear in the 

medical record that Defendants submitted with the Motion for Summary Judgment. (See

Doc. 63 at 570–576.) Thus, it appears that the January 2, 2019 medical record submitted 

by Defendants is not complete. 
- 27 -

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

Stewart’s request, which was made on October 25, 2019, but he was now apparently 

scheduled for urology in April 2019, more than 5 months later. (Id. at 66.) The responses 

to these Informal Complaints, all dated February 1, 2019, informed Harper that on 

January 30, 2019, NP Hahn submitted a consult request for an MRI/CT and that 

“sometimes it takes a while to get appointments.” (Id. at 69–72.) 

On January 23, 2019, Harper filed another Informal Complaint that although he had 

an active SNO for specific medical supplies, he had not received those supplies since 

November 20, 2018, despite suffering from an open, bleeding, and infected wound. (Id. at 

68.) There is no record of any response.

On February 8, 2019, Harper underwent an ultrasound on the scrotum and testicles. 

(Doc. 63 at 579.) The ultrasound report documented small bilateral hydroceles and a 

simple-appearing left epididymal cyst measuring 3 mm. (Id. at 580.) 

On February 27, 2019, Harper had an off-site appointment with Dr. Whitman, a 

general surgeon, for his neck swelling. (Id. at 582–583.) Dr. Whitman noted obvious 

cervical lymph adenopathy and cervical adenopathy, and documented that Harper needed 

to have a cervical node biopsy. (Id. at 583.)

On March 18, 2019, Harper underwent a biopsy procedure performed by Dr. 

Whitman. (Id. at 584–585.) The biopsy report/diagnosis indicated two benign lymph 

nodes. (Id. at 586.) 

On March 27, 2019, Harper had on off-site urology consult. (Id. at 590.) 

Defendants did not submit the medical record from the urology visit, and Defendants did 

not identify the urologist. (Id. at 590–598.) Defendants assert, and Harper does not dispute, 

that the provider recommended changing the catheter every two weeks for the next two 

changes and application of Neosporin at entry site every day. (Doc. 63 ¶ 41; Doc. 68 ¶ 41.) 

Upon his return from this appointment, Harper expressed concerns about the urology 

appointment, and he reported that he still had pain, that the doctor had told him to ejaculate 

more, and that the doctor was an idiot. (Doc. 63 at 591.) The medical records show that 

Harper’s next catheter changes were on April 6, 2019, and then a month later, on May 11, 
- 28 -

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

2019. (Id. at 601, 608.) 

On March 29, 2019, Harper saw Dr. Whitman again for follow up, and he was 

informed of the biopsy results. (Id. at 588.) Dr. Whitman noted that the left neck incision 

was well healed and post-op changes were normal. (Id.) 

As of July 2019, Harper was waiting to see an oncologist and undergo another PET 

scan that had been requested by medical personnel at Ironwood Cancer Center. (Doc. 68, 

PSOF ¶ 96.) 

IV. Claim Against Corizon

A. Legal Standard

To support a § 1983 claim 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) (extending the “official policy” requirement for municipal 

liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978), to private entities 

acting under color of law). Under Monell, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered a 

constitutional injury; (2) the entity had a policy or custom; (3) the policy or custom 

amounted to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (4) the policy 

or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional injury. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 

691–94; Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1110–

11 (9th Cir. 2001).

B. Discussion

1. Constitutional Injury

a. Eighth Amendment 

To support a medical care claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must 

demonstrate “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). There are 

two prongs to the deliberate-indifference analysis: an objective standard and a subjective 
- 29 -

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

standard. First, a prisoner must show a “serious medical need.” Id. (citations omitted). A 

“‘serious’ medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin 

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX 

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal citation 

omitted). Examples of indications that a prisoner has a serious medical need include “[t]he 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy 

of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.” Id. at 1059–

60.

Second, a prisoner must show that the defendant’s response to that need was 

deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. “Prison officials are deliberately 

indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they ‘deny, delay or intentionally 

interfere with medical treatment.’” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 

1990) (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)). Deliberate 

indifference may also be shown where prison officials fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain 

or possible medical need. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. “In deciding whether there has been 

deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs, [courts] need not defer to the 

judgment of prison doctors or administrators.’” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 

(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hunt v. Dental Dep’ t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989).

Even if deliberate indifference is shown, to support an Eighth Amendment claim, 

the prisoner must demonstrate harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; see 

Hunt, 865 F.2d at 200 (delay in providing medical treatment does not constitute Eighth 

Amendment violation unless delay was harmful). 

b. Discussion

Defendants make no argument that Harper did not suffer from a serious medical 

need. (See Doc. 61.) There can be no dispute that Harper’s neurogenic bladder condition, 

which required use of a catheter, his thyroid disorder, and his possible recurrence of 
- 30 -

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

Hodgkin’s lymphoma were conditions worthy of comment and treatment and, absent 

treatment, could result in significant injury or unnecessary pain. See McGuckin, 974 at 

1059–60. 

As to the deliberate indifference prong, Defendants argue there is no evidence that 

any Corizon agent was consciously aware of a serious risk of harm to Harper’s health and 

disregarded it. (Doc. 61 at 15.) Defendants submit that Harper’s conditions were 

appropriately monitored and his HNRs were reasonably responded to. (Id.) Defendants 

also contend that Harper himself was “at fault in inhibiting his healing process” and 

“played a role in causing himself pain” because on numerous occasions he was 

noncompliant with medications and treatment. (Id. at 15, 18.)

Every Corizon staff member who interacted with Harper could see that his condition 

required use of a catheter. Every medical record includes a list of Harper’s diagnosed 

conditions and current medications. Every medical staff member who saw Harper or 

responded to one of his HNRs or medical grievances was aware of his serious conditions 

and ongoing treatment needs. Harper reported his serious symptoms, including severe 

pain, in numerous HNRs, and the medical records documented his reports of bladder pain, 

bleeding, discharge, swollen lymph nodes and testicles, and neck pain. Defendants cannot 

credibly argue that the medical staff who treated Harper were unaware of his objectively 

serious symptoms, including swollen lymph nodes and testicles, bleeding from his catheter 

site and a green discharge with foul odor, and his significant weight loss. Even the partial 

evidence submitted with this motion amply demonstrates that Corizon staff members were 

subjectively aware of Harper’s serious medical needs. 

As to the contention that Harper was noncompliant and therefore caused himself 

pain, Harper directly disputes Defendants’ factual assertions that he refused treatment or 

medications, and, as Harper points out, Defendants did not submit any “Refusal to Submit 

to Treatment” forms to support that Harper ever refused treatment or medication. (Doc. 62 

¶¶ 18, 25, 33, 37; Doc. 68 ¶¶ 18, 25, 33, 37; see Doc. 63.) Regardless, whether Harper 

contributed to his own harm would be a factual question reserved for the jury.
- 31 -

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

Defendants further argue that although Harper claims that the urologist ordered 

Harper to return for follow up and removal of stitches after his November 27, 2017 

procedure, there is no record the urologist made any order for a return visit. (Doc. 61 at 

15.) But Defendants did not submit the medical record from the November 27, 2017 

urology visit. (See Doc. 63; supra n.13.) Consequently, they provide no evidence to refute 

Harper’s sworn statement that the urologist informed him to return in four weeks for 

removal of the stitches. (See Doc. 68 ¶ 44; Doc. 68, Ex. ZZ, Harper Decl.)25 

In their Motion, Defendants fail to address the medical evidence showing that

numerous recommendations and orders issued by treating specialists for scans, 

medications, and follow up, as well as numerous consult requests for scans and specialist 

appointments—some “urgent”—submitted by treating providers, were ignored, canceled,

or denied by Corizon Utilization Management without explanation. (See Doc. 63 at 50, 

55–56, 83–84, 99, 202, 205, 220, 426, 554; Doc. 68-1 at 42, 43; Doc. 68-2 at 28–31, 34, 

47, 78; Doc. 68-3 at 65; Doc. 68 ¶ 44.) For example, on June 26, 2017, Harper was seen 

by an oncologist who ordered follow up within 2 weeks or sooner, but there was no follow 

up. (Doc. 63 at 50.) On October 30, 2017, Dr. Babich ordered the site provider to schedule 

an oncology consult, but this order was apparently ignored and no oncology appointment 

was scheduled. (Doc. 68-1 at 42.) A year after that, on October 25, 2018, the treating 

provider submitted an urgent consult request for an oncology appointment. (Doc. 68-2 at 

30–31; Doc. 63 at 554.) A month later, the October 25, 2018 consult request was cancelled 

by Corizon. (Doc. 68-2 at 31.) 

In January 2018, Dr. Shah, the treating urologist, recommended an ultrasound of the 

scrotum and testicles, and the treating NP submitted a consult request for the procedure. 

25 “To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce 

evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial . . . .” Block v. City of Los Angeles, 

253 F.3d 410, 418–19 (9th Cir. 2001); see Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036–37 (9th 

Cir. 2003). The Court considers Harper’s statement as to what Dr. Shah told him because 

Harper can testify at trial as to what Dr. Shah told him, and Dr. Shah can testify at trial and 

be cross-examined, thus removing any hearsay objection. See 5 Wigmore, Evidence 

§ 1362 (Chadbourn rev., 1974). Moreover, in failing to file a reply, Defendants did not 

object to or dispute Harper’s statement.
- 32 -

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 denied the consult request ostensibly on the basis that it was unnecessary. 

(Doc. 63 at 426; Doc. 68-1 at 83–84; see Doc. 68-2 at 78.) There is no documentation of 

the decision to deny this consult request. Ten months later, on October 25, 2018, Dr. 

Stewart submitted another consult request for an ultrasound, which was to include the 

testicles. (Doc. 63 at 554.) There is no evidence of any response to this consult request. 

On January 8, 2019, NP Hahn submitted an urgent consult request for an ultrasound of the 

scrotum and testicles. This consult request was finally addressed, but only after an attorney

began reviewing Harper’s medical records and advocating for medical treatment on his

behalf. (Doc. 63 at 576; Doc. 68-2 at 37.) Harper finally underwent an ultrasound of the 

scrotum and testicles on February 8, 2019—more than a year after the specialist 

recommended the procedure. (Doc. 63 at 579.)

Indeed, In March and April 2017, immediately after Harper’s arrival at the ADC, 

Drs. Epstein and Musial documented that Harper needed an endocrine appointment and a 

referral to endocrinology “ASAP.” (Doc. 63 at 5–6, 30.) These orders were apparently

ignored, as there is no evidence that Harper ever saw an endocrinologist. 

Deliberate indifference is exhibited where a plaintiff demonstrates that medical staff 

chose a course of treatment that was “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” 

and “that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the 

prisoner’s] health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996); see Jett, 439 

F.3d at 1097–98 (jury could find deliberate indifference where the prison doctor was aware 

that the plaintiff needed to see an orthopedist for treatment and the plaintiff was not taken 

to the orthopedist for 6 months). The Ninth Circuit and other courts have routinely found 

that failure to follow a treating specialist’s or even a treating physician’s recommendation 

may amount to a course of treatment that is medically unacceptable. See Colwell v. 

Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying summary judgment where prison 

officials “ignored the recommendations of treating specialists and instead relied on the 

opinions of non-specialist and non-treating medical officials who made decisions based on 

an administrative policy”); Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2012) (where 
- 33 -

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

the treating physician and specialist recommended surgery, a reasonable jury could 

conclude that it was medically unacceptable for the non-treating, non-specialist physicians 

to deny recommendations for surgery), overruled in part on other grounds by Peralta v. 

Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014); Jones v. Simek, 193 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 

1999) (the defendant physician’s refusal to follow the advice of treating specialists could

constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs); McNearney v. Wash. Dep’t of 

Corrs., C11-5930 RBL/KLS, 2012 WL 3545267, at *26 (W.D. Wash. June 15, 2012) (in 

granting a preliminary injunction for specialist treatment, the district court found that the 

prisoner plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits of her Eighth Amendment 

claim where the defendants failed to follow an orthopedic surgeon’s strong 

recommendation for further orthopedic evaluation). The evidence in this case shows 

multiple failures to comply with the treating specialists’ and treating physicians’ 

recommendations and orders. A reasonable jury could find that Corizon staff was 

deliberately indifferent to Harper’s serious medical needs.

The fact that Harper was “monitored,” as Defendants contend, and seen frequently 

by medical staff, by no means prevents a finding a deliberate indifference. (Doc. 61 at 15.) 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 2000) (prisoner does not have to prove 

that he was completely denied medical care). A failure to competently treat a serious 

medical condition, even if some treatment is prescribed, can constitute deliberate 

indifference. As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “access to medical staff is meaningless unless 

that staff is competent and can render competent care.” Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 

1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105 & n. 10 (the treatment received 

by a prisoner can be so bad that the treatment itself manifests deliberate indifference). The 

record shows that Corizon staff repeatedly failed to follow through on treating specialists’ 

and treating physicians’ recommendations, often failed to address Harper’s pain and

bleeding, delayed catheter changes, and often refused to provide necessary medical 

supplies for cleaning and dressing Harper’s suprapubic catheter site and wound. 

Defendants’ assertion that Harper “was provided with necessary medications pursuant to 
- 34 -

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

recommendations from offsite visits” is utterly unsupported, as almost none of the medical

records from the offsite visits were submitted. (Doc. 61 at 15; see supra n.4–6, 8, 13, 15, 

19.)

Moreover, the medical records show that on numerous occasions Harper’s pain 

medication was improperly stopped or staff failed to renew it, despite physician’s orders 

and Harper’s HNRs informing staff of his medical needs and ongoing severe and 

excruciating pain. (See Doc. 63 at 131, 141, 227, 432; Doc. 68-2 at 48; Doc. 68-3 at 6, 11; 

Doc. 68 ¶¶ 30, 83, 91.) The record reflects that pain medication, antibiotics, and 

medication to treat bladder spasms were inexplicably discontinued. (See Doc. 63 at 232, 

263, 544–545; Doc. 68-3 at 6.) And after Harper was diagnosed with a MRSA infection, 

he was prescribed an antibiotic to which he was allergic, even though this allergy 

information was in his medical records. (Doc. 63 at 495, 505; Doc. 68-1 at 95.) The 

ongoing and repeated failure to timely change Harper’s catheter, provide necessary medical 

supplies, and properly administer Harper’s medications strongly suggests that medical staff 

acted with deliberate indifference to Harper’s medical needs. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 

1060–61 (“a finding that the defendant repeatedly failed to treat an inmate properly . . . 

strongly suggests that the defendant’s actions were motivated by ‘deliberate indifference’

to the prisoner’s medical needs”); Wood, 900 F.2d at 1334 (“[i]n determining deliberate 

indifference, we scrutinize the particular facts and look for substantial indifference in the 

individual case, indicating more than mere negligence or isolated occurrences of neglect”). 

A reasonable jury could readily find that Corizon medical staff failed to treat Harper’s 

serious medical needs competently, and acted with deliberate indifference.

The final question in the Eighth Amendment analysis is whether Harper suffered 

harm as a result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; Hunt, 

865 F.2d 198. This is not a difficult issue. Harper avers that as a result of the lack of 

adequate medical care he has suffered excruciating pain, and the medical record and HNR 

evidence documents ongoing, constant, and severe bladder pain; painful catheter changes; 

and painful recurring UTI infections and MRSA infections. (See Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 63 at 
- 35 -

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

131, 141, 227, 432; Doc. 68-2 at 48; Doc. 68-3 at 6; Doc. 68 ¶¶ 30, 83, 91.) In his 

declaration dated June 27, 2019, Harper avers that antibiotics have not cured the internal 

MRSA infection and it has been left untreated. (Doc. 68-3 at 87.) He further avers that he 

now has 16 swollen lymph nodes throughout his left and right lymphatic tract. (Id. at 88.) 

See S. Cal. Housing Rights Ctr. v. Los Feliz Towers Homeowners Ass’n, 426 F. Supp. 2d 

1061, 1070 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (a declarant has personal knowledge of his or her own 

symptoms). Harper’s ongoing UTI and MRSA infections and pain could be found to 

constitute harm sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim. See Estelle, 429 U.S. 

at 103 (Eighth Amendment applies even to “less serious cases, [where] denial of medical 

care may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological 

purpose”); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (pain and anguish suffered by prisoner constituted 

harm sufficient to support a § 1983 action); see also Newell v. Ngu, 589 F. App’x 782 (7th 

Cir. 2014) (the plaintiff’s testimony that he suffered from recurring urinary tract infections 

and experienced pain and discomfort during the extended period that his catheter was not 

being changed properly was sufficient for a jury to infer that the infections and pain resulted 

from the lack of appropriate attention to his catheter, “a conclusion that seems frivolous to 

dispute given the extensive medical records of treatment for infections”). 

In light of the above, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Harper

suffered a constitutional injury, thereby satisfying the first prong under Monell.

2. Policy or Custom

A policy is “a deliberate choice to follow a course of action” made by the officials 

or entity “responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in 

question.” Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1992). A policy can be one of 

action or inaction. Long v. Cnty. of L.A., 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). A “custom” 

for purposes of municipal liability is a “widespread practice that, although not authorized 

by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well-settled as to constitute 

a custom or usage with the force of law.” St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988).

“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents; it 
- 36 -

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

must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the 

conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 

F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). While one or two incidents are insufficient to establish a 

custom or practice, the Ninth Circuit has not established what number of similar incidents 

would be sufficient to constitute a custom or policy. See Oyenik v. Corizon Health Inc., 

No. 15-16850, 2017 WL 2628901, at *2 (9th Cir. June 19, 2017) (a reasonable jury could 

conclude that at least a dozen instances of defendant Corizon denying or delaying 

consultations and radiation treatment for cancer patient over a year amounts to a custom or 

practice of deliberate indifference) (citing Oviatt, 954 F.2d at 1478). But “[t]here is no 

case law indicating that a custom cannot be inferred from a pattern of behavior toward a 

single individual.” Id. Whether actions by entity officers or employees amount to a custom 

“depends on such factors as how longstanding the practice is, the number and percentage 

of officials engaged in the practice, and the gravity of the conduct.” Mi Pueblo San Jose, 

Inc. v. City of Oakland, C-06-4094 VRW, 2006 WL 2850016, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 

2006)

Defendants assert generally that Harper cannot show Corizon had a policy of 

deliberate indifference, that Harper cannot show a constitutional violation as a result of any 

policy, and that there is no probative evidence to support that there was a deliberately 

indifferent policy. (Doc. 61 at 16, 18.) But Defendants do not specify any alleged 

deficiency with Harper’s evidence. A summary judgment movant must do more than 

simply assert that the plaintiff has no evidence. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332 (White, J., 

concurring) (“[i]t is not enough to move for summary judgment . . . with a conclusory 

assertion that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his case”); id. at 332 (Brennan, J., 

dissenting) (a conclusory assertion that the nonmovant has no evidence is insufficient). 

Instead, Defendants are required to “point to shortfalls in the [plaintiff’s] case to 

demonstrate the absence of evidence . . . .” See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps 

Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1543 (9th Cir. 1989); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 319–20 (the 

defendants specifically pointed out that the plaintiff “failed to identify, in answering 
- 37 -

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

interrogatories specially requesting such information, any witnesses who could testify 

about the decedent’s exposure to petitioner’s asbestos products”). Defendants have failed 

to show the absence of evidence as to the existence of a policy.

Moreover, the evidence is sufficient to support a policy or custom. Corizon medical 

staff repeatedly failed to comply with specialist-recommended treatment and Corizon 

repeatedly denied, cancelled, or ignored treating providers’ consults requests for scans, 

follow up, and specialist appointments. These multiple failures, denials, and delays of

medical care did not result from the actions of one or two rogue employees; they occurred 

over time and involved numerous Corizon employees and officials. See Henry v. Cnty. of 

Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 521 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding a policy more likely where multiple 

employees were involved in the constitutional violation). A reasonable jury could find that 

given the frequency of denials of specialist-recommended treatment and consult requests 

over a two-year period, medical staff were acting pursuant to Corizon policy or custom. 

See Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 2002) (whether a policy 

or custom exists is normally a jury question). 

3. Deliberately Indifferent Policy/Moving Force

Because deliberate indifference is exhibited where prison officials deny or delay 

medical treatment, resulting in harm, see Wood, 900 F.2d at 1334, an ongoing policy or 

practice that denies or delays treating specialist and physician-recommended treatment for 

a serious medical need and thereby causes harm would constitute a deliberately indifferent 

policy. To establish that a policy or custom is the “moving force” behind a constitutional 

violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal link between the policy or custom 

and the constitutional deprivation. See Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. 

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). The Court has already found a genuine issue of material 

fact whether there existed a policy or custom of denying or delaying treatment and 

procedures recommended by the treating specialists and physicians. An obvious 

consequence of such a policy or custom may be the denial and delay of constitutionally 

adequate medical care. On this basis alone, the moving-force element is satisfied. See 
- 38 -

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

Brown, 520 U.S. at 405 (“the conclusion that the action taken or directed by the [entity] 

. . . itself violates federal law will also determine that the [entity] action was the moving 

force behind the injury of which the plaintiff complains”).

Accordingly, there exists a question of fact as to whether Corizon had a deliberately 

indifferent policy that deprived Harper of his constitutional rights. The Motion for 

Summary Judgment as to Corizon will be denied.

V. Claims Against Director Ryan

A. Individual Capacity Claim26

1. Supervisory Liability

A supervisor may be liable in his individual capacity under § 1983 “if there exists 

either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a 

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir 2011) (quoting Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). Supervisory liability is direct liability, which 

requires the plaintiff to show that that supervisor breached a duty to the plaintiff that was 

the proximate cause of the injury. Redman v. Warden of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1447 

(9th Cir.1991) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citation 

omitted). “The law clearly allows actions against supervisors under section 1983 as long 

as a sufficient causal connection is present and the plaintiff was deprived under color of 

law of a federally secured right.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A causal 

connection can be “an affirmative link” between a constitutional deprivation and “the 

adoption of any plan or policy by [a supervisor,] express or otherwise showing [his or her] 

26 The Court’s Screening Order found that Harper stated a claim against Ryan in his 

official capacity, but Harper also stated a claim against Ryan in his individual capacity. 

(Doc. 6 at 7; see Doc. 1.) See Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[w]e 

also have presumed that officials necessarily are sued in their personal capacities where 

those officials are named in a complaint, even if the complaint does not explicitly mention 

the capacity in which they are sued”); see also Entler v. Gregoire, 872 F.3d 1031, 1034 n.1 

(9th Cir. 2017). In their Motion, Defendants recognized a claim against Ryan in his 

individual capacity and presented argument for summary judgment on this claim. (Doc. 61 

at 17 (argument and citations to individual-capacity liability cases).) 
- 39 -

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

authorization or approval of such misconduct.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). 

In other words, a supervisor can be liable for creating policies and procedures that violated

a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The “sufficient causal connection” may be shown by evidence that the supervisor 

“implement[ed] a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional 

rights[.]’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). This 

type of claim against a supervisor does not fail on a state of mind requirement such as 

intent, knowledge, or deliberate indifference. “Advancing a policy that requires 

subordinates to commit constitutional violations is always enough for § 1983 liability, no 

matter what the required mental state, so long as the policy proximately causes the harm—

that is, so long as the plaintiff’s constitutional injury in fact occurs pursuant to the policy.” 

OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1076 (9th Cir. 2012). 

2. Discussion

Defendants argue that there is no evidence Ryan was consciously aware of Harper’s 

medical issues and that Ryan had no direct involvement Harper’s healthcare. (Doc. 61 at 

17.) For these reasons, Defendants maintain that Ryan was not in a position to avert a 

known risk of harm and failed to do so, and he cannot be liable for an Eighth Amendment 

violation. (Id.) 

As stated, supervisor liability does not necessarily require a showing of intent or 

knowledge if the supervisor advanced a policy that caused harm. OSU Student Alliance, 

699 F.3d at 1076. The Court has already determined there is a triable issue of fact whether 

the medical provider with whom Ryan contracted had a deliberately indifferent policy that 

resulted in the denial and delay of specialist and physician-recommended treatment and 

caused harm. 

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, overt personal participation in Harper’s 

healthcare is not required for supervisory liability under § 1983. See Redman, 942 F.2d at 

1446 (overt personal participation not required for supervisor liability). Harper nonetheless

argues that Ryan had involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation because Harper 
- 40 -

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

wrote to Ryan on three separate occasions seeking help, and attorney Ms. Lomio wrote to 

Ryan’s counsel and demanded immediate medical care. (Doc. 67 at 13.) The evidence 

submitted with Harper’s Response includes an Inmate Informal Complaint Resolution 

Harper wrote to Ryan in July 2018, which informed Ryan that Harper’s pain medication 

had been improperly discontinued, his catheter had never been changed on time, and, 

despite medical orders for regular dressing changes, he had only received two dressing 

changes in the prior three weeks. (Doc. 68-3 at 6.) Harper also submitted an Inmate Letter 

directed to Ryan in which Harper stated that it was Ryan’s responsibility to ensure that 

Corizon provided adequate healthcare and that Harper was being denied medications, 

catheter changes, and dressings, and asked Ryan to address the situation. (Id. at 8.) In 

failing to file a reply brief in support of their Motion, Defendants do not rebut Harper’s 

argument or any of the evidence in his Response, nor do they proffer counter evidence to 

suggest that Ryan did not receive these communications from Harper. See Keel v. Dovey, 

459 F. Supp. 2d 946, 951 n.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (finding that “since Defendants did not 

object to the Plaintiff’s declarations or otherwise controvert the matters described therein 

in a Reply, the Court deems such facts undisputed”). 

Harper proffered copies of the letters that attorney Lomio sent to Director Ryan’s 

counsel in the Parson’s action. (Doc. 68-2 at 28–34.) These letters, sent in December 

2018, explained that specialist recommendations and consult requests for oncology and 

urology appointments for Harper had not been complied with or properly addressed, and 

Ms. Lomio requested that Harper immediately be seen by an oncologist and urologist. (Id.) 

Knowledge of the December 2018 communications regarding Harper’s medical issues was 

imputed to Ryan through his counsel. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634 

(1962) (“each party is . . . considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be 

charged upon the attorney”); In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 315 (3d. Cir. 2004) 

(“the attorney and client have an agency relationship and therefore any facts known by the 

attorney may generally be imputed to the client”); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 9(3) 

(1958) (“[a] person has notice of a fact if his agent has knowledge of the fact . . . ”). 
- 41 -

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

Construing the evidence in Harper’s favor, Ryan had subjective knowledge of Harper’s 

medical issues, and he was put on notice of deficiencies in the provision of medical care

that were preventing Harper from receiving recommended treatment.

The Ninth Circuit has held that a defendant can be liable for a failure to act. Taylor 

v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The Circuit has also held that “a prison 

administrator can be liable for deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs if he 

‘knowingly fail[s] to respond to an inmate’s requests for help.’” Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1085–

86 (quoting Jett, 439 F.3d at 1098). Ryan, as the ADC Director, had the authority to take 

action to remedy the alleged violation once he was aware of Harper’s medical condition 

and requests for treatment. A reasonable jury could find that Ryan was aware of Harper’s 

medical issues and failed to act or respond to Harper’s requests for help and was thereby 

deliberately indifferent to Harper’s serious medical needs. Accordingly, the Motion for 

Summary Judgment will be denied as to the individual-capacity claim against Ryan.

B. Official Capacity Claim

1. Legal Standard

“Official-capacity suits . . . generally represent only another way of pleading an 

action against an entity of which an officer is an agent. As long as the government entity 

receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects 

other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 

159, 165–66 (1985) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.55). The Eleventh Amendment bars 

a damages action against a State in federal court; however, it does not bar claims for 

injunctive relief against individuals in their official capacity. ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. v. 

GCI Commc’n Corp., 321 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2003). 

To support a claim against a defendant in his official capacity, a plaintiff must 

demonstrate that a policy or custom of the governmental entity of which the official is an 

agent was the moving force behind the violation. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 

(1991); Kentucky, 473 U.S. at 166. That is, the plaintiff must establish an affirmative causal 

link between the policy at issue and the alleged constitutional violation. See City of Canton, 
- 42 -

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

Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 391–92 (1989). With an official-capacity claim, a 

plaintiff is not required to show a named official’s personal involvement in the alleged 

constitutional violation. “Rather, a plaintiff need only identify the law or policy challenged 

as a constitutional violation and name the official within the entity who can appropriately

respond to injunctive relief.” Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

2. Discussion

As mentioned, Harper sought injunctive relief and the Court found that the 

allegations in Harper’s Complaint supported an official-capacity claim against Ryan. 

(Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 6 at 7.) See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91; see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-

201.01(D) (“[t]he director shall provide medical and health services for the prisoners”). In 

their Motion, Defendants argue that Ryan was not aware of Harper’s medical issues and he

had no direct involvement Harper’s healthcare, but these arguments go to Ryan’s 

culpability in his individual capacity. (Doc. 61 at 17.) The Court has already determined 

that there are questions of fact whether Corizon had a deliberately indifferent policy or 

custom that deprived Harper of a constitutional right and was the moving force of the 

violation. Defendants make no argument that Ryan cannot be held liable in his official 

capacity for Corizon’s alleged deliberately indifferent policy. Consequently, the Court will 

deny summary judgment as to the official capacity claim against Ryan.

But Ryan is no longer the ADC Director. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

25(d), when an officer sued in his or her official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases 

to hold office while the action is pending, “[t]he officer’s successor is automatically 

substituted as a party.” David Shinn is the current ADC Director, and he is the proper 

official to respond to injunctive relief. Accordingly, David Shinn will be automatically 

substituted as the Defendant for Harper’s official capacity claim for injunctive relief.

VI. Conclusion.

The Court is deeply troubled by the facts of this case. The Court is equally troubled 

that Defendants would file a motion for summary judgment in light of such facts, fail to 
- 43 -

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

file a reply brief, fail to provide key medical records, and submit records that appear to 

have been altered, as discussed above. The Court therefore will require that this order be 

read personally by (a) ADC Director David Shinn, (b) the highest official of Corizon 

responsible for the operations to which Plaintiff has been subjected, and (c) the Arizona 

Attorney General. Although Director Shinn bears the responsibility of executing any 

injunctive relief, because Centurion of Arizona is the current contracted health care 

provider and thus should be aware of Harper’s condition, the Court will also require that 

this order be read by the Centurion Statewide Medical Director. Defendants shall file a 

certification within 30 days that this order has been read – personally – by each of these 

individuals.

The Court will also seek to identify counsel willing to represent Plaintiff on a pro 

bono basis throughout the remainder of this case. Defendants are directed to have no 

settlement discussions with Plaintiff until counsel has appeared on his behalf.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) This order shall be read personally by (a) ADC Director David Shinn, (b) the 

highest official of Corizon responsible for the operations to which Plaintiff has been 

subjected, (c) the Arizona Attorney General, and (d) the Centurion Statewide Medical 

Director. Defendant shall file a certification within 30 days that this order has been read –

personally – by each of these individuals.

(2) The Court will seek to identify counsel willing to represent Plaintiff on a pro 

bono basis throughout the remainder of this case. Defendants are directed to have no 

settlement discussions with Plaintiff until counsel has appeared on his behalf.

(3) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61.)

(4) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61) is denied.

(5) David Shinn is substituted as Defendant for Plaintiff’s official capacity claim 

for injunctive relief. 

(6) The remaining claims are the Eighth Amendment claim for damages against 
- 44 -

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; the Eighth Amendment claim for damages against Ryan in his individual 

capacity; and the Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief against Shinn in his official 

capacity. 

(7) This action is referred to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey to conduct 

a settlement conference on Plaintiff’ s remaining claims. The Court requests that Judge 

Morrissey not schedule the conference until after counsel has appeared in this case for 

Plaintiff.

Dated this 19th day of February, 2020.