Opinion
No. CV-20-00650-PHX-SRB (ESW)
12-17-2020
Howard George Ireland, Plaintiff, v. Paul Penzone, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Howard George Ireland ("Plaintiff"), who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail. By separate Order, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the Complaint. After screening the proposed First Amended Complaint, the undersigned found that Count One stated a claim against Defendant Paul Penzone and Count Two stated a claim against Defendant Dr. Grant Phillips. However, the First Amended Complaint also names Correctional Health Services as a Defendant.
Municipalities and other local governing bodies are included among those "persons" who may be sued under § 1983. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Because Correctional Health Services is not a municipal corporation, a local governing body, or a private corporation, it is not a "person" amenable to suit under § 1983. Maricopa County is responsible for providing medical care to county jail inmates. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 11-291(A). Any actions against a county policy must be brought against the county itself and not against an administrative subdivision of the county. It is recommended that the Court dismiss Correctional Health Services from this action as it is a non-jural subdivision of Maricopa County. See Payne v. Arpaio, No. CV09-1195-PHX-NVW, 2009 WL 3756679, at *5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2009) ("Because no statute, general or specific, gives Correctional Health Services jural status, all claims against Correctional Health Services will be dismissed."); Moynihan v. Arpaio, No. CV-06-0467-PHX-FJM, 2007 WL 1100331, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 6, 2007) ("Correctional Health Services is a non-jural entity and is therefore not amenable to suit under § 1983. Any action challenging a county policy must be brought against the county itself and not against an administrative subdivision of the county.").
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Correctional Health Services from this action.
The above recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).
Dated this 17th day of December, 2020.
/s/_________
Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge