Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2011cv00302/587000/5
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 20:28:09
Document Index: 354916094

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 636']

ORDER that Plaintiff's 3 MOTION for DeRoche v. Adu-Tutu et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court DeRoche v. Adu-Tutu et al Filing 5
DeRoche v. Adu-Tutu et al
ORDER that Plaintiff's 3 MOTION (application) for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Defendants ADOC and Members of the ADOC's Central Office Hepatitis C Committee are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim u pon which relief may be granted. Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu must answer the Complaint (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court must send to Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendan t Michael Adu-Tutu. Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 04/13/11. (NOTE: see attached pdf for complete details) (ESL)
1 2 RP WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joshua DeRoche, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Michael Adu-Tutu, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-302-PHX-DGC (JRI) ORDER 15 16 Plaintiff Joshua DeRoche, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 17 Eyman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an 18 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3), and a “Certified Statement Of Account” 19 (Doc. 4). The Court will order Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu to answer the Complaint and 20 will dismiss the remaining Defendants. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 22 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 24 The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory 25 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time 26 the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a 27 TERMPSREF 28 1 separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees 2 according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against 5 a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised 7 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may 8 be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not 12 demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 13 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 14 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 15 statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th 27 Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards 28 TERMPSREF -2- 1 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 2 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 III. Complaint 4 Named as Defendants in the Complaint are: (1) Michael Adu-Tutu, Director of Inmate 5 Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC); (2) Members of the Central 6 Office Hepatitis C Committee, ADOC; and (3) ADOC. 7 Plaintiff’s sole claim in the Complaint is that his Eighth Amendment rights are being 8 violated by the authorization of a clinical practice policy that denies essential health care to 9 Plaintiff and others suffering from Hepatitis C. 10 11 Plaintiff seeks Court-ordered Interferon treatment for his Hepatitis C. IV. Dismissal of Defendants 12 A. Members of the ADOC’s Central Office Hepatitis C Committee 13 Plaintiff attempts to sue members of ADOC’s Central Office Hepatitis C Committee 14 who denied his requests for treatment of his Hepatitis C. Although pro se pleadings are 15 liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations 16 will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 17 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); Rhodes v. Robinson, 612 F.2d 766, 772 (3d Cir. 1979). 18 Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. 20 21 identify a specific individual who violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Rizzo v. 22 Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Plaintiff’s conclusory and vague allegations 23 against the members of the ADOC’s Central Office Hepatitis C Committee are not sufficient 24 to link Plaintiff’s injuries to any individual member or to identify any individual member 25 with enough specificity to state a claim against any specific individual. Moreover, the use 26 of anonymous type appellations to identify defendants is generally not favored. Rule 10(a) 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to include the names of the 28 TERMPSREF In order to state a claim against an individual in a civil rights action, Plaintiff must parties in the action. As a practical matter, it is impossible in most instances for the United -3- 1 States Marshal or his designee to serve a summons and complaint, or amended complaint, 2 upon an anonymous defendant. 3 Accordingly, the unidentified members of the ADOC’s Central Office Hepatitis C 4 Committee will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 5 B. ADOC 6 Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or 7 state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State School 8 and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 9 Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. Likewise 10 ‘arms of the State’ such as the Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under 11 section 1983.” Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) 12 (citation omitted). Accordingly, as an arm of the State, the ADOC is not a proper Defendant and will be 13 14 dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 15 V. Claim for Which an Answer Will be Required 16 In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights are being violated by 17 Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu’s authorization of a clinical practice policy that denies 18 essential health care to Plaintiff and others suffering from Hepatitis C. Plaintiff alleges that 19 the policy is “unconstitutional and does not accurately reflect the applicable standard of care 20 within the community.” 21 “opportunity to review Plaintiff’s need for treatment based on community standards, but 22 declined to do so.” Plaintiff also alleges that “[u]nder the policy, inmates who are at Stage 23 (0) and (1) fibrous (Plaintiff is at Stage 1) will not be treated.” Plaintiff asserts that 24 “[r]efusing to provide essential Hepatitis C antiviral therapy has promoted further liver 25 damage and decreased the probability of sustaining a successful treatment response.” Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Adu-Tutu had the 26 27 Count I against Defendant Adu-Tutu. Accordingly, the Court will require Defendant 28 TERMPSREF Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment medical care claim in Michael Adu-Tutu to answer the Complaint. -4- 1 VI. Warnings 2 A. Release 3 Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release. 4 Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay 5 the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result 6 in dismissal of this action. 7 B. Address Changes 8 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 9 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 10 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 11 action. 12 C. Copies 13 Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy 14 of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate 15 stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff must submit 16 an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply 17 may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff. 18 D. Possible Dismissal 19 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 20 warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 21 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to 22 comply with any order of the Court). 23 IT IS ORDERED: 24 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted. 25 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency, 26 Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee. 27 28 TERMPSREF -5- 1 (3) Defendants ADOC and Members of the ADOC’s Central Office Hepatitis C 2 Committee are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 3 be granted. 4 (4) Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu must answer the Complaint (Doc. 1). 5 (5) The Clerk of Court must send to Plaintiff a service packet including the 6 Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for 7 Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu. 8 9 10 11 (6) Plaintiff must complete1 and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. (7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or 12 complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Adu-Tutu within 120 days 13 of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, 14 the action may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 15 16 17 (8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use. (9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu of the 18 commencement of this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 19 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendant must include a copy 20 of this Order. The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the 21 summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or is not 22 returned by Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by 23 the Marshal, the Marshal must: (a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon 24 25 Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 26 1 27 28 TERMPSREF If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the ADOC, Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee works. Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the ADOC unless the officer or employee works there. -6- 1 (b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service 2 for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the 3 summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant. 4 The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and 5 must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of 6 the Summons, Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process receipt and 7 return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the 8 personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 10 11 12 (10) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint, he must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff. (11) Defendant Michael Adu-Tutu must answer the Complaint or otherwise 13 respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 14 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 (12) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin pursuant to Rules 72.1 16 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 18 DATED this 13th day of April, 2011. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TERMPSREF -7-