Court Opinion

ID: 9462164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:33:25.922403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:26.164672
License: Public Domain

CONTI, District Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part):
I agree with the court’s holding that the district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claims against the State of Arizona and the prison staff physician, Dr. Deputy.
I respectfully dissent, however, from the reversal of the order of the district *485court insofar as that order holds that appellant has not stated a claim for relief against Correctional Officer Miller, cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Similarly, I disagree with the majority’s decision to remand this case to the district court for further consideration of whether appellant has stated a claim against Warden Cardwell, Associate Warden Burd, and Correctional Officer Hall pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior. In short, I am of the opinion that the district court was correct in dismissing the entire complaint for failure to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Judge Duniway’s enunciation of the legal standard applicable here and his reference to Johnson v. Glick (2d Cir. 1973), 481 F.2d 1028, reflect my opinion of the law. However, after careful consideration of the complaint and notwithstanding the requirements of Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, I cannot conclude, as Judge Duniway does, that the complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.