Purdue v. NaphCare
2:25-cv-01430
| D. Ariz. | Nov 17, 2025|
Check Treatment|
Docket
1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jacob James Purdue, No. CV-25-01430-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 29, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Jacob James Purdue, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail and is proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights Complaint 17 pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983
. In a September 5, 2025 Order, the Court granted the 18 dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave 19 Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the 20 Order. 21 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In an October 22 6, 2025 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had 23 failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint 24 that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 25 On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The 26 Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662
, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.”Id.
14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”Id.
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.”Id.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.”Id. at 679
. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct.Id. at 681
. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler,627 F.3d 338
, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 55127 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 II. Second Amended Complaint 2 In his single-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department 3 of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) Director Ryan Thornell and 4 NaphCare. Plaintiff asserts a claim regarding his medical care. He seeks compensatory 5 and punitive damages and injunctive relief. 6 Plaintiff alleges that in November 2023, while he was incarcerated at the Arizona 7 State Prison Complex-Lewis, he began experiencing a severe cough, dizziness, vomiting, 8 fainting, shortness of breath, loss of appetite, and headaches. Plaintiff asserts he submitted 9 “repeated” health needs requests, which were unanswered, and he notified medical staff of 10 his worsening condition, but his requests were ignored and/or delayed. Plaintiff contends 11 Defendant NaphCare and ADCRR failed to follow established medical and institutional 12 protocol, including but not limited to failing to schedule timely evaluations, “determine 13 cause via labs or other means,” document symptoms, provide treatment, and refer Plaintiff 14 “to a higher level of care.” Plaintiff claims that due to Defendants’ inaction and failure to 15 follow protocol, Plaintiff’s condition significantly worsened, causing pain and suffering, 16 severe rapid weight loss, and permanent breathing issues. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 17 NaphCare and ADCRR acted with deliberate disregard and indifference to his serious 18 medical needs, demonstrating reckless disregard for his health, welfare, and safety. 19 III. Failure to State a Claim 20 A. Defendant Thornell 21 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 22 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 23 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode,423 U.S. 362
, 24 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 25 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 26 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,436 U.S. 658 27
(1978); Hamilton v. Endell,981 F.2d 1062, 1067
(9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List,880 F.2d 28 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, 1 a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own 2 individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 676
. 3 Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Thornell personally participated in a 4 deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to act, 5 or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff makes no allegations at all 6 against Thornell. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Thornell. 7 B. Defendant NaphCare 8 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public 9 function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts to support 10 that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom 11 promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,698 F.3d 12
1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012); Buckner v. Toro,116 F.3d 450, 452
(11th Cir. 1997) (per 13 curiam). A plaintiff must allege the specific policy or custom and how it violated his 14 constitutional rights. A private entity is not liable merely because it employs persons who 15 allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1139; Buckner, 16116 F.3d at 452
. 17 Plaintiff does not allege that any of the conduct described in the Second Amended 18 Complaint was the result of a specific policy or custom of Defendant NaphCare. Rather, 19 Plaintiff alleges that NaphCare “failed to follow established medical and institutional 20 protocol.” Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant NaphCare. 21 IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely 23 granted “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The court considers five factors 24 in assessing the propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the 25 opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended 26 the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges,655 F.3d 984, 995
(9th Cir. 2011) 27 (citing Johnson v. Buckley,356 F.3d 1067
, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)). 28 . . . . 1 The Court notified Plaintiff of the deficiencies of the claims he raised in the original 2| and First Amended Complaints. See Akhtar v. Mesa,698 F.3d 1202, 1212
(9th Cir. 2012)
(noting that a pro se plaintiff is generally entitled to notice of the deficiencies of his claims
4] and an opportunity to amend). Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend his claims and
5 | has failed to do so. The Court finds further leave to amend would be futile. Therefore, the
6| Court, in its discretion, will dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without leave
7) to amend.
8| ITIS ORDERED:
9 (1) The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) is dismissed for failure to state a
10 | claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment
11 | accordingly.
12 (2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the
13 | dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 14 (3) — The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(3)
and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal
16 | of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma
17 | pauperis.
18 Dated this 17th day of November, 2025.
19
21
09 _ James A. Teil Org
Senior United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28