The Court has rejected this same argument from the Attorney General's Office i Tucson and from private counsel. See e.g., Creamer v. Ryan, CV 10-0305-TUC-FR (Order, Doc. 134 at 12-13); Abney v. Astrue, CV 04-525-TUC-RCC, 2008 WL 2397334, at *7 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2008); Benge v. Scalzo, CV 04-1687-PHX-DGC, 2008 WL 2157024, at *10 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2008). --------
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to argue a showing of deliberate indifference because he was seen by physician assistants rather than a doctor, Plaintiff does not have the constitutional right to be personally examined by a doctor while incarcerated. See Benge v. Scalzo, No. CV 04-1687-PHX-DGC(CRP), 2008 U.S. LEXIS 40782, at *25, 2008 WL 2157024 (D.Ariz. May 21, 2008) ("Generally, a prison's practice of using nurses, instead of doctors, for primary medical treatment does not constitute a policy or custom that violates the Constitution."); Corley v. Prator, No. 06-0392, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74599, at *12, 2007 WL 2908885 (W.D. La. Oct. 4, 2007 (same)); Callaway v. Smith County, 991 F.Supp. 801, 809 (D.Tex.1998) (stating because the plaintiff was seen by nurses and not a physician does not violate the Constitution); Hayes v. Smith, No. CV04-620-S-EJL, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61306, at *15, 2007 WL 2413023 (D.Idaho Aug. 21, 2007) (finding that a physician's assistant was available to examine the prisoner and that the inmate was not entitled to select the medical care provider of his choice).
Goolsby, however, does not have the constitutional right to be personally examined by a doctor while incarcerated. See Benge v. Scalzo, No. CV 04-1687-PHX-DGC(CRP), 2008 U.S. LEXIS 40782, at *25 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2008) ("Generally, a prison's practice of using nurses, instead of doctors, for primary medical treatment does not constitute a policy or custom that violates the Constitution."); Corley v. Prator, No. 06-0392, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74599, at *12 (W.D. La. Oct. 4, 2007 (same)); Callaway v. Smith County, 991 F. Supp. 801, 809 (D. Tex. 1998) (stating because the plaintiff was seen by nurses and not a physician does not violate the Constitution); see also Hayes v. Smith, No. CV04-620-S-EJL, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61306, at *15 (D. Idaho Aug. 21, 2007) (finding that a physician's assistant was available to examine the prisoner and that the inmate was not entitled to select the medical care provider of his choice). Plaintiff's contention that Dr. Ridge's failure to examine Goolsby constituted deliberate indifference cannot withstand the Motion to Dismiss.
See also Bowman v. Hager, 2006 WL 3759479 (E.D.Ark.). Courts have recognized serious mental health needs where inmates were considered suicide risks, attempted suicide, or overdosed on pills. See Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1268-9 (11th Cir. 1996), and Benge v. Scalzo, 2008 WL 2157024 (D.Ariz. 2008). With respect to defendants' allegations that plaintiff's claim should fail for lack of proof of physical injury, the Courts have held that the PLRA was not intended to bar recovery for all forms of relief, and absent physical injury, plaintiffs may recover nominal and punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. See Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2004).