Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

West v. Cox

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 28, 2018

MARY S. WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
GREG COX, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court.

         Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 51), filed by Plaintiff Mary S. West (“Plaintiff”). Defendants Dr. Romeo Aranas (“Aranas”), Yolanda Campbell (“Campbell”), Beebe Clark (“Clark”), Bob Faulkner (“Faulkner”), Dr. Francisco Sanchez (“Sanchez”), Dr. Richard Wulff (“Wulff”), and Jo Gentry (“Gentry”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 53), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 54). For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from alleged constitutional violations that occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center (“FMWCC”) in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 8, ECF No. 30). Plaintiff states six counts of Eighth Amendment violations against Defendants for deliberate indifference to her conditions. (Id. ¶¶ 59, 64, 67, 72, 75, 79).[1] Specifically, Plaintiff alleges she suffered or continues to suffer from the following medical conditions: (1) injuries to her right shoulder; (2) injuries to her left wrist; and (3) growths on her forehead and hands. (Id. ¶¶ 7-57).

         A. Right Shoulder

         Plaintiff alleges that her right shoulder was injured on August 14, 2013. (Id. ¶ 17). After her injury, Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) medical doctor James Holmes (“Holmes”) saw her twice a week and provided her a sling, provided her an ace wrap, prescribed her Tylenol, and performed an x-ray. (Id. ¶ 20-21). Plaintiff alleges numerous, additional visits to Wulff and Sanchez where they examined her, x-rayed her shoulder, and treated her with an injection. (Id. ¶ 21-30). On March 19, 2015, Wulff ordered an MRI of Plaintiff's shoulder, which she received on April 17, 2015. (Id. ¶ 35). Based on the MRI, Wulff recommended surgery, which he performed on June 15, 2015. (Id. ¶ 39-40).

         Throughout this time, Plaintiff submitted kites and grievances to FMWCC regarding her treatment. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 22). Moreover, Plaintiff requested that family members phone prison officials with respect to her shoulder and wrist injuries. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Aranas, Gentry, Clark, and Faulkner routinely denied these grievances and that Faulkner asked Plaintiff to stop having family members call the office. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 32-34, 37).

         B. Left Wrist

         Plaintiff alleges she injured her left wrist on June 1, 2014. (Id. ¶ 43). The fracture was confirmed, and Plaintiff was approved for surgery on June 3, 2014. (Id.). Between June 30 and November 16, Plaintiff alleges various specific instances in which Campbell, Gentry, Clark, and Faulkner falsely informed her about the status and scheduling of her surgery. (Id. ¶¶ 46-49, 75). During this time, Defendants Aranas, Gentry, Clark, and Faulkner allegedly ignored Plaintiff's kites and grievances concerning her pending wrist surgery. (Id. ¶ 44). Ultimately, on November 12, 2014, Holmes performed surgery on Plaintiff's wrist. (Id. ¶ 51).

         C. Forehead and Hand Growths

         In June of 2014, Plaintiff submitted kites complaining of growths on her forehead and hands. (Id. ¶ 53). Sanchez examined the growths and determined that they were not of concern and did not require treatment. (Mot. to Dismiss (“MTD”) 13:11-13, ECF No. 39). Additionally, Clark allegedly suggested that Plaintiff cover the growths on her forehead with her bangs. (SAC ¶ 54). Plaintiff alleges that her private physician is currently treating the growths with Prednisone injections and Plaintiff is awaiting a biopsy. (Id. ¶ 56).

         On August 8, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. (See Prior Order, ECF No. 50) (hereinafter “Prior Order”). Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state cognizable Eighth Amendment claims with respect to Counts II, III, IV, and VI, and Count V in regard to Aranas, Sanchez, and Wulff. (See Id. 13:1-10). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reconsider on August 23, 2017, in which Plaintiff requests that the Court reverse its dismissal of the aforementioned claims or, in the alternative, permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Mot. to Recons. 9:10-19).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, although the court enjoys discretion in granting or denying a motion under this rule, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.