United States District Court, D. Arizona
JUAN J. MANZO, Plaintiff,
F. ROJAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (DOC. 1.)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
has filed a complaint asserting constitutional claims against
governmental employees and/or entities. (Doc. 1.) Generally,
the Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice, ” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)),
and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences, ” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted
as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting
“under color of state law.” See 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii).
Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but
nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short
of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
claims arose during his incarceration at Pleasant Valley
State Prison (“PVSP”) in Coalinga, California and
at Florence Corrections Center (“FCC”) in
Florence, Arizona. He names as defendants (1) PVSP Nurse F.
Rojas, (2) FCC Nurse Robert Mbuya, (3) FCC Dr. Katherine
Hakeman, (4) FCC Chief Medical Officer Keith Ivens, (5) FCC
Nurse Karlla Greinermiller, (6) FCC Owner / Manager
Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), and
(7) “J. Doe 1-X, ” which appears to be an
identifier for three different people: (a) the “person
responsible for the policies of the CDCR, ” Compl.
¶¶ 21, 34; (b) the “person(s) responsible for
plaintiff's transfer, ” Compl. ¶ 36; and (c)
the “person(s) responsible for plaintiff's
continuity of treatment, ” Compl. ¶ 39.
allegations may be fairly summarized as follows:
entered PVSP in February 2013. By June 2014, he was awaiting
to be seen for surgery in his right eye to remove a pterygium
that was affecting his vision and causing him pain.
2, 2014, plaintiff was scheduled for an involuntary
out-of-state transfer. Nurse Rojas screened plaintiff for
this transfer, reviewed plaintiff's pain summary sheet
and/or health records, and thus became aware of
plaintiff's medical needs. Nonetheless, she failed to
initiate and/or place a medical hold on that transfer. As a
result, plaintiff was transferred to FCC on June 4, 2014.
5, 2014, plaintiff was taken to a clinic at FCC whereupon
defendant Mbuya conducted an Initial Health Screening.
Plaintiff informed Mbuya about the pterygium in his right eye
and his pending surgery. Mbuya, however, did not verify this
surgery or refer plaintiff to a doctor.
11, 2014, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Hakeman, who became
aware of the pterygium but simply referred plaintiff to an
optometry consult for eyeglasses. She ignored plaintiff's
request to be referred to an ophthalmologist.
12, 2014, defendant Ivens denied Dr. Hakeman's routine
referral to an optometrist pursuant to CCA policy. Per
plaintiff, CCA requires its health care staff to adhere to
CDCR policies when it comes to providing medical treatment
for California inmates. However, plaintiff does not specify
how the CDCR policy would have resulted in the denial of this
21, 2014, plaintiff submitted a medical request regarding his
need for eye surgery and other medical issues. In response to
this request, plaintiff was seen by Nurse Greinermiller on
June 23, 2014. This defendant, too, failed to confirm