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.

Sandoval v. Corizon L.L.C.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

June 21, 2017

Felipe Sandoval, Plaintiff,
v.
Corizon, L.L.C., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Cindy K. Jorgenson United States District Judge

         Pending before the Court is the Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Notice of Other Acts (Doc. 19) and the Motion to Stay (Doc. 25) filed by Defendants Corizon, LLC, Spencer Sego, Joanne Grafton, Dr. Chris Johnson, Charles Ryan, and Dr. Robertson (collectively “Defendants”). A response (Doc. 20) and a reply (Doc. 22) have been filed. Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Disqualify (Doc. 21) filed by Plaintiff Felipe Sandoval (“Sandoval”). A response (Doc. 23), a reply (Doc. 24), and a supplemental reply (Doc. 28) have been filed.

         Procedural History

         On January 12, 2017, Sandoval filed an Amended Complaint in this case. Sandoval alleges he has kidney problems, is on dialysis, and that nephrologists have suggested that he get a kidney transplant. Sandoval asserts Defendants Grafton and Johnson denied his requests for a kidney transplant and nerve damage treatment because Sandoval did not qualify “under their policy.” Sandoval also claims he did not receive alternative treatment.

         Sandoval also alleges Defendants Grafton and Johnson have also refused treatment to other inmates, other inmates are either being denied treatment or receiving delayed treatment, and that these denials have been upheld by others. Sandoval further claims that Defendant Corizon and Defendant Ryan have policies of delaying and/or denying medical care for serious medical needs and have implemented a grievance process, a treatment strategy, and a litigation strategy to reduce costs. Sandoval asserts Defendant Ryan has a duty to provide inmates with treatment for serious medical needs and cannot delegate that duty to Defendant Corizon. Sandoval claims Defendant Ryan knows, through reports, grievances, complaints, and lawsuits, that Defendant Corizon is delaying and denying treatment. Sandoval also alleges that Defendant Ryan gave the medical care contract to Defendant Corizon because others lobbied on Defendant Corizon's behalf. Sandoval claims Defendants Ryan and Robertson used to work for Corizon's lobbyists and that Defendants Ryan and Robertson changed medical policy based on those lobbyists. Sandoval also claims that Defendants Ryan and Robertson, in an effort to prevent inmates from complaining about the denial of treatment, have created a “vexatious grievance provision” that can cause inmates to lose good time credits.

         On February 3, 2017, this Court issued a screening order in which the Court found Count One of the Amended Complaint states a claim for an Eighth Amendment medical care violation against Defendants. Additionally, the Court dismissed Counts Two and Three, which alleges Defendants abused their power, and dismissed additional co-defendants.

         On April 24, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Notice of Other Acts (Doc. 19). A response (Doc. 20) and a reply (Doc. have been filed.

         On May 1, 2017, Sandoval filed a Motion to Disqualify (Doc. 21). A response (Doc. 23), a reply (Doc. 24), and a supplemental reply (Doc. 28) have been filed.

         Motion to Strike (Doc. 19)

         Defendants assert the following portions of the Amended Complaint should be stricken as immaterial, impertinent, and/or irrelevant to Sandoval's individual claims, are prejudicial and scandalous, and do not relate to Sandoval's medical care claims:

(1) Count I paragraph 3 (18) p. 3B, those allegations relating to Terry Stewart or Dr. Thomas Lutz have been dismissed by the Court's Screening Order [Doc. 9] and should be stricken;
(2) Count I paragraph 3 (19) p. 3C, Plaintiff's claims that Answering Defendants created a grievance process, litigation strategy, and/or treatment strategy based upon reduction of costs, or that Corizon has been sanctioned more than 250 times, or that Ryan has improperly concealed and kept confidential materials or information;
(3) Count I paragraph 3 (20) and (21) p. 3C, allegations that Answering Defendants Corizon and Ryan adopted policies to delay/deny necessary medical care, and engaged in a cover up; and
(4) Count I paragraph 3 (22) through (27) p. 3C-D, Plaintiff's allegations relating to Terry Stewart, Dr. Thomas Lutz, Edward Shuman, and Greg Fizer which have been dismissed by the Court's Screening Order [Doc. 9]. Plaintiff's allegations in those paragraphs alleging a cover up, that Corizon's medical decisions not to provide treatment are not subject to review, that they have prevented inmates from complaining that they are being denied treatment for their serious medical needs through vexatious grievance ...

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.