Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schilleman v. Corizon Health Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

December 2, 2015

Robert Schilleman, Plaintiff,
v.
Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

DOUGLAS L. RAYES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Robert Schilleman, who is represented by counsel, brings this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arizona state law. (Doc. 22.) Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 130);[1] (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Exhaustion of Remedies (Doc. 113); (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Briefing and Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Exhaustion of Remedies (Doc. 115);[2] and (4) Defendant Lisa Fansler’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment re: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (Doc. 137).[3]

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

In a March 26, 2015 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff stated the following claims in his First Amended Complaint: (1) Eighth Amendment claims against Corizon in Counts One and Three; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim against Ryan in Count One; (3) Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hegmann, Mulhorn, Medical Director, Medical Providers, Montano, Facility Health Administrators, and Fansler in Count Two; and (4) state law negligence claims against Defendants Hegmann, Mulhorn, Medical Director, Medical Providers, Montano, Facility Health Administrators, and Fansler in Count Three. (Doc. 23.) The Court noted that because unnamed Medical Director, Medical Providers, and Facility Health Administrators could not be served, Plaintiff should seek to amend his complaint to add the proper names of those Defendants when they were discovered. (Id. at 15.)

Plaintiff seeks leave to add claims against Patrick Arnold, Duc Vo, Winfred Williams, Cynthia Ripsin, Kent Ainslie, “Facility Health Administrators, ASPC-Eyman, ” “Corizon’s Clinical Coordinator assigned to the ASPC-Eyman (Cook Unit), ” and “Corizon’s Regional Medical Director responsible for the ASPC-Eyman (Cook Unit).”

A. Legal Standard

Although the decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is within the discretion of the district court, “Rule 15(a) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “In exercising its discretion[, ] . . . ‘a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15-to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities . . . . Thus, ‘Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.’” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir.1987) (citations omitted). Motions to amend should be granted unless the district court determines that there has been a showing of: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of the movant; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (5) futility of the proposed amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. “Generally, this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Significantly, “[t]he party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice, ” futility, or one of the other permissible reasons for denying a motion to amend. DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987); see Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that leave to amend should be freely given unless the opposing party makes “an affirmative showing of either prejudice or bad faith”).

Here, there is no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure, or undue prejudice. Defendants assert that allowing Plaintiff leave to amend to add additional allegations against additional Defendants would be futile because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against those Defendants. Accordingly, the Court will examine whether Plaintiff states claims upon which relief may be granted in his Second Amended Complaint.

B. Futility

1. Count One

Plaintiff continues to assert Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Corizon and Ryan in Count One. Consistent with the Court’s findings in its March 26, 2015 Order, Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Corizon and Ryan in Count One of his Second Amended Complaint. . . . .

2. Count Two

In Count Two, Plaintiff seeks to add an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Kent Ainslie, Unknown FHAs, Unknown Clinical Coordinators, the Corizon Regional Medical Director, Patrick Arnold, Duc Vo, Winfred Williams, and Cynthia Ripsin. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations in Count Two, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Kent Ainslie, Unknown FHAs, Unknown Clinical Coordinators, the Corizon Regional Medical Director, and Patrick Arnold, Duc Vo, Winfred Williams, and Cynthia Ripsin in Count Two. The Court will therefore allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to add his Eighth Amendment claims in Count Two against Defendants Kent Ainslie, Patrick Arnold, Duc Vo, Winfred Williams, and Cynthia Ripsin. However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add Corizon’s Clinical Coordinator, Unknown Facility Health Administrators, and Corizon’s Regional Medical Director, he must seek to amend his claims against those Defendants when he discovers their proper names for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s March 26, 2015 Order.

Additionally, Plaintiff reasserts Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hegmann, Mulhorn, and Montano in Count Two. Consistent with the Court’s findings in its March 26, 2015 Order, Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.