United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.
separate Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion
(Doc. 42) requesting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 47). In accordance with the Court's continuing
obligation to screen prisoners' complaints, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a), the Court screens the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 48) as follows.
Court has a continuing obligation to screen complaints
brought by prisoners seeking relief against an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof that is
legally frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1), (2).
to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar
standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012). “The Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires a complaint
to ‘contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Thus, in reviewing
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, the Court must
accept as true all well-pled factual allegations and draw all
reasonable inferences therefrom. See Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Steckman v.
Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1296-98 (9th Cir.
1998). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. In addition, the Court must liberally construe the
Second Amended Complaint. See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at
1121 (“We construe pro se complaints liberally and may
only dismiss a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim
if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him
to relief.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
First Amended Complaint raises an Eighth Amendment medical
care claim against a number of Defendants. In its January 11,
2018 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff adequately stated
a claim against only Defendant Corizon. (Doc. 36 at 9-11).
The Court dismissed Defendants Lavoy, Horwitz, Lasac,
Peretra, Ryan, Robertson, Shuman, Fizer, Smith-Whitson,
Grafton, and Johnson from the First Amended Complaint without
prejudice. (Id. at 12). The proposed Second
Amended Complaint contains additional factual allegations
against Defendants Lavoy, Horwitz, Lasac, Grafton, Johnson,
Ryan, Robertson, Shuman, Fizer, and Smith-Whitson. As
discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has corrected
the deficiencies identified in the Court's January 11,
2018 Order with respect to the claim against these
Defendants. Because the Second Amended Complaint does
not amend the allegations against Defendant Corizon, the
Court will order Defendant Corizon to answer the Second
Amended Complaint for the reasons explained in the
Court's prior Order (Doc. 36 at 9-11).
Defendants Lavoy, Horwitz, and Lasac
dismissing Defendants Lavoy, Horwitz, and Lasac from the
First Amended Complaint, the Court explained that Plaintiff
did not allege facts suggesting that Defendants Lavoy,
Horwitz, and Lasac knew Plaintiff was continuing to
experience pain or that they deliberately delayed
Plaintiff's treatment. (Doc. 36 at 6). In his Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Lavoy,
Horwitz, and Lasac “failed to prescribe medications
that Corizon would authorize as a direct consequence of their
actions I did not have medication to relieve the pains of my
medical conditions.” (Doc. 48 at 22). The Court finds
that for screening purposes, the Second Amended Complaint
adequately states an Eighth Amendment medical care claim
against Defendants Lavoy, Horwitz, and Lasac. The Court will
require Defendants Lavoy, Horwitz, and Lasac to answer the
Second Amended Complaint.
Court found that the First Amended Complaint failed to state
an Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendant Ryan
because it does not allege facts suggesting that Defendant
Ryan knew of a significant risk to Plaintiff's health and
acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. (Doc. 36 at
7). The Second Amended Complaint contains the additional
allegation against Defendant Ryan, which asserts that
is aware that Corizon is not providing inmates with
medication that is helping out our conditions. Ryan
nevertheless refuses to acting with deliberate indifference
direct Corizon to provide us these meds that help. In fact
Corizon staff in East Unit advised me that he has directed
not to give us medications that are effective for our pain.
(Doc. 48 at 22). Liberally construed, the Court finds that
the Second Amended Complaint adequately states a claim
against Defendant Ryan. Defendant Ryan will be required to
answer the Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants Grafton and Johnson
Court dismissed Defendants Grafton and Johnson from the First
Amended Complaint because Plaintiff did not allege that they
were aware of Plaintiff's medical need. (Doc. 36 at 8).
The Second Amended Complaint corrects this deficiency by
alleging that Defendants Grafton and Johnson “[b]y my
visits and communications to them and through HNRs were aware
the pain meds were not helping. [T]hey nevertheless refused
to give me meds that ...