Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2011cv02071/651103/5
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 07:21:39
Document Index: 207520949

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

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 3 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 McCowan v. Kendall et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
McCowan v. Kendall et al
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 3 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 Judge David G Campbell on 12/12/11.(REW)
Marlon Corwin McCowan,
Dennis Kendall, et al.,
No. CV 11-2071-PHX-DGC (ECV)
Plaintiff Marlon Corwin McCowan, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth
Avenue Jail, 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 $14.61. The remainder of the fee will be
Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: Facility Health
Administrator Dennis Kendall, Regional Health Administrator Jim Taylor, Arizona
Department of Corrections Director Charles L. Ryan, Arizona Department of Corrections
Health Services, Unknown Healthcare Provider, Grievance Coordinator D. Daniels, and
Amendment rights were violated when he was not provided with surgery for a broken hand.
Plaintiff alleges that on October 21, 2009, his hand was broken when he was assaulted by
another inmate. Plaintiff was seen by a specialist who recommended surgery. Plaintiff states
that on November 2, 2009, he was transported to Maricopa Medical Center for surgery, but
that after he informed the orthopedic surgeon he has hepatitis C, the surgeon left the room
and never returned to speak with Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that he was told that if he had the
surgery, it would have to be scheduled with the Arizona Department of Corrections and
Maricopa Medical Center and that Plaintiff was then transported back to his unit. Plaintiff
claims that after he was returned to his unit, he did not see a medical provider until December
17, 2009, although he requested medical treatment for his hand. Plaintiff filed a grievance
regarding the surgery, to which Defendant Kendall responded “the state contracts have been
cancelled with hospitals and providers. We are currently developing contracts, you are
placed on the schedule with an Orthopedic Surgeon.” Plaintiff again filed a grievance on
February 8, 2010, to which Defendant Taylor replied that Plaintiff had been scheduled for
additional tests. Plaintiff further claims Defendant Daniels told Plaintiff that he could not
help Plaintiff with the issue. Plaintiff appealed to Defendant Ryan, who responded that
Plaintiff raises two claims for relief. In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth
Plaintiff was scheduled to meet with a healthcare provider in September 2010. Plaintiff
claims that he was never seen by a healthcare provider in September 2010 and never received
any additional treatment for his hand. Plaintiff claims that his hand healed improperly and
is disfigured because of lack of treatment.
In Count II, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when the
Orthopedic surgeon failed to perform surgery on Plaintiff after discovering that Plaintiff had
hepatitis C. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Ryan cut funds to treat inmates with
Arizona Department of Corrections Health Services is simply an administrative
division of the Arizona Department of Corrections and, therefore, is not a proper Defendant.
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state
agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. Likewise ‘arms of the
State’ such as the Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under section 1983.”
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections Health
Center is simply an administrative creation of Maricopa County and not a “person” amenable
to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Maricopa Medical Center will be dismissed
Similarly, Maricopa Medical Center is not a proper Defendant. The Maricopa Medical
claim that were not initially pled. Id. Finally, 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).
In Count I, Plaintiff has not linked the denial of his hand surgery to any particular
defendant or the policies of a particular Defendant. It is therefore unclear which Defendant
or Defendants were responsible for denying Plaintiff his hand surgery. Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim with respect to these allegations.
To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a violation of his constitutional rights based on the
denial of his grievances, the mere denial of or failure to respond to a grievance does not give
rise to the inference of active unconstitutional behavior. Where a defendant’s only
involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial of administrative
grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy alleged unconstitutional
behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for purposes of § 1983. Shehee
v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim in Count I.
In Count II, Plaintiff claims that the orthopedic surgeon at the Maricopa Medical
Center denied Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to perform surgery on
Plaintiff’s hand after discovering Plaintiff has hepatitis C. The Court notes first that Plaintiff
has not named the orthopedic surgeon as a Defendant to the Complaint. Even if Plaintiff had
named the orthopedic surgeon, Plaintiff’s allegations do not state an Eighth Amendment
violation of the Eighth Amendment. To state a § 1983 medical claim, a plaintiff must show
that the defendants acted with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v.
Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
infliction of pain and (2) the defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d
at 1096 (quotations omitted).
In this case, the surgeon’s motive for failing to perform surgery on Plaintiff’s hand
is unclear; Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the surgeon was deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. Plaintiff’s facts suggest that Plaintiff may not have
been scheduled for surgery on November 2, 2009, but was only being seen for an initial
examination by the surgeon, with surgery to be scheduled later, and that failure to schedule
the surgery was the fault of an individual at the Arizona Department of Corrections.
To the extent that Plaintiff claims Defendants Ryan and Governor Brewer have cut
funding for treatment of inmates with hepatitis C, Plaintiff has not sufficiently linked this
claim to his injuries. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how cuts in funding for hepatitis C
treatment affected his ability to receive surgery for an injury not related to his hepatitis C
condition. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim in Count II.
Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $14.61.