Papilli v. Ryan

          ORDER

          James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. NATURE OF THE CASE

         This matter arises out of a complaint by Plaintiff, presently incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison in Buckeye, Arizona, alleging a denial of adequate medical care related to a work injury to his finger.

         II. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

         Plaintiff has filed a “First Amended Complaint”' (Doc. 13) prior to service of an answer pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Court is required to screen that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

         This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Judge, and the determination of the undersigned is dispositive of some of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

         III. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges he received inadequate medical care after a February 2018 accident, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff claims that while working through Defendant ACI for Defendant Alliance Truss Co., he severely cut his index finger while using a radial arm saw. Plaintiff claims that two weeks before the accident, he informed supervisors that the machine was not properly functioning, the aluminum guide was bent, and the blade was worn. Plaintiff was told to use it the way it was. After Plaintiff was injured, he was rushed to the hospital where a doctor sutured his finger together. The surgeon told him he would regain full functionality. Plaintiff alleges that on March 16, 2018, he was seen by Defendant Ende, at which time he requested physical therapy for his finger; Defendant Ende denied the request. On April 6, 2018, Defendant Smith responded to Plaintiff's informal complaint by denying Plaintiff physical therapy. Plaintiff claims that due to Defendant Ende and Smith's deliberate indifference, he cannot bend his finger past 20%. Plaintiff also requested that he be sent back to a surgeon, but his request was denied. Plaintiff claims the injury to his finger prevents him from continuing with his trade of concrete masonry and block and brick mason work.

         IV. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Original Complaint - Plaintiff's original Complaint was filed August 16, 2018, and asserted one count against ADOC Director Charles L. Ryan; Arizona Corrections Institute; Arizona Corrections Industries (ACI); Corizon Health Services LLC (Corizon); Nurse Practitioner Lawrence Ende; Alliance Truss Company Incorporated; and Facility Health Administrator Vicki Smith.

         In the initial Screening Order entered September 30, 2018 (Doc. 8), the Court relied on Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and found that Plaintiff failed to adequately state claims against Defendants Ryan, Arizona Corrections Institute, and Alliance Truss because there is no respondeat superior liability for civil rights claims, and Plaintiff failed to allege their direct participation in his injuries. The court found that Plaintiff failed to adequately state claim against Defendant Corizon because “Plaintiff has not described a policy or custom of Defendant Corizon or explained how such a policy or custom violated his constitutional rights.” Accordingly, these defendants were dismissed.

         The Court concluded that Plaintiff adequately stated an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Defendants Ende and Smith for denial of physical therapy, and directed an answer from these defendants.

         First Amended Complaint

         - In response to the initial Screening Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend (Doc. 10) which was granted because Plaintiff was entitled to make the amendment of right, and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) was filed on October 30, 2018. The amended complaint reasserts the same claims against the same defendants, but adds additional allegations related to Defendants Corizon, Arizona Correctional Industires, and Alliance Truss.

         With regard to Corizon, Plaintiff now adds:

Corizon Health Service has created a policy that denies inmates access to adequate medical care that is a serious medical need. Their denial has resulted in violation of Plaintiff's unnecessary suffering and unwanton infliction of pain. Based on that policy FHA V. Smith and N.P. L. Ende have taken no action to provide Plaintiff w/ adequate care. When confronting L. Ende he stated “it is not my fault, I have submitted a requrest to Corizon to allow you opportunity to acquire outside physical therapy but Corizon shot it down.”

(Doc. 13 at 3A.)

         With regard to ACI and Alliance ...