United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. CAMPBELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jonathan Villalobos Acuna, who was previously confined in the
Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, brought this civil
rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.)
Defendants move for summary judgment. (Doc. 27.) Although
Plaintiff was informed of his right and obligation to respond
to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff
failed to respond, and the time to do so has expired. The
Court will grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
and terminate the action.
sued for violations of his Eighth Amendment right to medical
care stemming from Defendants' alleged failure to treat
his brain tumor. (Doc. 1.) On screening under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated
an Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendants
Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Charles Ryan
and Corizon Health and ordered them to answer. (Doc. 6.) The
Court dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants.
Summary Judgment Standard
must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The movant bears
the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its
motion and identifying those portions of the record, together
with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the
nonmovant need not produce anything. Nissan Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Co.,
Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if
the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden
shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a
factual dispute and that the fact in contention is material,
i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 250 (1986);
see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d
1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish
a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First
Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.
253, 288-89 (1968); however, it must “come forward with
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
(internal citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
summary judgment, the judge's function is not to weigh
the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court must believe the
nonmovant's evidence and draw all inferences in the
nonmovant's favor. Id. at 255. The court need
consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any
other materials in the record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3).
A. Plaintiff's Complaint
alleges the following facts in his Complaint:
2014, Plaintiff began experiencing pressure behind his eyes.
(Doc. 1 at 5.) He also experienced blinding headaches and
seeing flashing lights when he closed his eyes. (Id.
at 6.) Plaintiff was sent to the optometrist and told to buy
Tylenol from the prison commissary. (Id. at 5.)
1, 2016, Plaintiff had an MRI. (Id. at 6.) On July
25, 2016, Plaintiff underwent surgery to have a brain tumor
removed and “8 plates and 16 screws were placed”
in his forehead. (Id.) Plaintiff was placed on very
high doses of Tylenol and Ibuprofen which caused him to have
stomachaches and blood in his stool. (Id.) At some
point, a radiologist diagnosed Plaintiff with a second brain
tumor. (Id. at 5.)
Corizon is delaying treatment for the tumor and is not giving
Plaintiff the correct medications. (Id.) Defendants
Corizon and Ryan have a policy of denying and delaying
treatment for inmates' serious medical needs.
(Id. at 6-7.) Defendant Ryan awarded the contract
for the provision of inmate healthcare to Defendant Corizon
based on Defendant Corizon's policy of delaying and
denying treatment to save money. (Id. at 7.) All
decisions made by Defendant Corizon are final and not subject
to appeal, and inmates who use the non-medical grievance
policy to grieve medical issues are labeled as vexatious and
lose good-time credits. (Id.) Staff members who
handle grievances have been directed not to grant relief to
inmates. (Id.) Defendant Ryan is ...