Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2012cv00440/682325/5
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 12:09:28
Document Index: 210371878

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

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Complaint 1 is dismissed for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff has 30 days to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order; if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Clerk must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U for Worley &#035; 257008 v. Correctional Medical Services :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Complaint 1 is dismissed for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff has 30 days to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order; if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Clerk must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 4/23/12.(REW)
No. CV 12-440-PHX-RCB (MEA)
Plaintiff Glenn Cornell Worley, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-
Eyman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an
The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $41.50. The remainder of the fee will be
Plaintiff names Correctional Medical Services as Defendant to the Complaint and
raises three claims for relief.
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he
was not provided with treatment for HIV, with which he had already been diagnosed, until
120 days after he entered the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). Plaintiff
further claims that even though he is now receiving medication, delivery of the medication
is often late, resulting in missed doses. Plaintiff claims that the delay in medication creates
the risk of Plaintiff becoming resistant to treatment and has also resulted in infections to his
skin, eyes, and mouth as well as internal injuries.
medical staff: failed to complete an initial medical screening of Plaintiff during intake;
misplaced at least two of Plaintiff’s Health Needs Request forms, in which he indicated he
needed urgent care; assigned Plaintiff to a primary care physician who had no experience
with treating HIV positive patients; and failed to keep accurate and consistent records of
Plaintiff’s treatment and tests.
he was initially denied a root canal, but offered tooth-extraction, because he is serving a life
sentence. Plaintiff states that he later received the root canal, but the delay in treatment
In Count III, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rigths were violated when
resulted in an infection that spread throughout his mouth.
Defendant Correctional Medical Services is not a proper Defendant. First, to state a
valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific injury as a result
of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the injury and the
conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). There
is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position as the
supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose
liability. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92
(1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983
suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.
Defendant Correctional Medical Services
Accordingly, Correctional Medical Services would not be liable to Plaintiff simply
as the employer of Plaintiff’s healthcare providers.
However, it does not appear that Correctional Medical Services employs Plaintiff’s
healthcare providers. Correctional Medical Services is a private contractor that provides
medical care to prison facilities. It is not clear that Correctional Medical Services is
presently contracted to provide services to the ADOC or, more importantly, that Correctional
Medical Services was contracted with the ADOC at the time of Plaintiff’s injuries, which are
mostly from 2010.
plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with “deliberate indifference to serious medical
The Court will therefore dismiss Defendant Correctional Medical Services.
needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). A plaintiff must show (1) a “serious medical need” by demonstrating
that failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain and (2) the defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent.
Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotations omitted).
1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know
of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; “the official must both be aware of facts
from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and
he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Deliberate
indifference in the medical context may be shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond
to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439
F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may also be shown when a prison official intentionally
denies, delays, or interferes with medical treatment or by the way prison doctors respond to
the prisoner’s medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. “Neither negligence nor gross
negligence will constitute deliberate indifference.” Clement v. California Dep’t of
Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter
Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of “indifference,” “negligence,” or
“medical malpractice” do not support a claim under § 1983). “A difference of opinion does
not amount to deliberate indifference to [a plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.” Sanchez v.
Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). A mere delay in medical care, without more, is
insufficient to state a claim against prison officials for deliberate indifference. See Shapley
v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). The indifference
must be substantial. The action must rise to a level of “unnecessary and wanton infliction
of pain.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105.
In Counts I, II, and III, Plaintiff has failed to name as a Defendant the individuals who
were responsible for denying him medical care, and has therefore failed to state a claim.
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff claims medical staff were negligent in failing to provide
care, he has also failed to state a claim. Plaintiff must show that a particular defendant was
deliberately indifference to his serious medical needs by being both aware of his need for
care and by failing to act appropriately.
Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $41.50.