United States District Court, D. Idaho
ANTONIO V. ROLON, Plaintiff,
JOHN G. MIGLIORI; GRANT W. ROBERTS; CORIZON, INC.; KEVIN G. SHEA; JOSH TEWALT; RONA SIEGERT; and JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES A-Z, Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
Winmill U.S. District Court Judge
Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Antonio v.
Rolon's Complaint as a result of Plaintiff's status
as an inmate. The Court now reviews the Complaint to
determine whether it should be summarily dismissed in whole
or in part under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Having reviewed the
record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters
the following Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint if Plaintiff intends to proceed.
Court must review complaints filed by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity, as well as complaints
filed in forma pauperis, to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate. The Court must dismiss a complaint
or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious
claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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). A complaint fails to
state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual
assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient
for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other
words, although Rule 8 “does not require detailed
factual allegations, ... it demands more than an unadorned,
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts
pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant's
liability, ” or if there is an “obvious
alternative explanation” that would not result in
liability, the complaint has not stated a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face. Id. at 678, 682
(internal quotation marks omitted).
is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Correction (“IDOC”), currently incarcerated at
the Idaho State Correctional Center (“ISCC”).
Plaintiff states that he suffers severe pain in both of his
knees due to medial and lateral meniscal tears.
Compl., Dkt. 3, at 4-5. He alleges that he began
receiving treatment for the pain on December 2, 2015,
when he received an MRI. At that time, Plaintiff was housed
at a private prison in Colorado. Plaintiff was transferred to
ISCC in March 2016. Plaintiff claims that, from then until
June 2017, he received inadequate medical treatment for his
Plaintiff's medical treatment throughout this period was
provided by prison medical providers. However, prison medical
providers referred Plaintiff to outside specialists on at
least two occasions. Plaintiff alleges that, in May 2016, an
outside provider, Dr. Schwartzman, recommended an arthroscopy
as a “corrective procedure”; Plaintiff was not
informed of this recommendation until nearly a month later.
Id. at 6. Prison medical providers did not schedule
an arthroscopy as recommended by Dr. Schwartzman.
was again examined by an outside provider, this time by
Defendant Dr. Shea, on May 17, 2017. In the course of that
examination, Dr. Shea reviewed ultrasound images of
Plaintiff's knees taken in February 2017 but “was
not provided the MRI report from December 2015.”
Id. at 9. Dr. Shea also did not conduct a new MRI.
Unlike Dr. Schwartzman, Dr. Shea found that arthroscopic
meniscectomy was unlikely to relieve Plaintiff's pain.
Instead, he recommended “avoidance of impact
activities, ” ice for Plaintiff's knee as needed,
and “knee sleeves, or rigid bracing to offer temporary
relief (but not long-term fix).” Id. at 9-10.
Dr. Migliori noted Dr. Shea's recommendations during an
examination of Plaintiff on June 7, 2017. Id. The
Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff received inadequate
medical treatment after that date.
guidelines from the Bureau of Prisons and the National
Commission of Correctional Health Care, Plaintiff claims that
the standard of care for a person with his knee problems is
to provide “elective arthroplasty surgery.”
Id. at 10.
Complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Idaho state law. Plaintiff sues Corizon, Inc.-the private
company providing medical treatment to Idaho inmates under
contract with the IDOC-as well as Dr. Shea and several
individuals who are Corizon medical providers or IDOC
has not alleged sufficient facts to proceed with the
Complaint. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff 28 days
to amend the Complaint. Any amended complaint should take
into consideration the following.
Statute of Limitations
appears that most of Plaintiff's claims are untimely.
Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho are governed by
a two-year statute of limitations. Idaho Code § 5-219;
see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985)
(holding that state statute of limitation for personal injury
actions governs § 1983 actions), abrogated on other
grounds by Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541
U.S. 369 (2004).
the state statute of limitations governs the time period for
filing a § 1983 claim, federal law governs when that
claim accrues, or arises. Elliott v. City of UnionCity, 25 F.3d 800, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1994). Under the
“discovery rule, ” a claim accrues “when
the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the
injury” that is the basis of the claim. Lukovsky v.
City & Cty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048
(9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is,
the statute of ...