HAMILTON v. WONG (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-27No. No. 20-17287

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all of Hamilton's claims because he failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and that the pharmaceutical companies acted under color of state law.

David Hamilton, a state prisoner, filed a federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials and pharmaceutical companies were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, he alleged wrongdoing related to his exposure to gadolinium during an MRI scan and the denial of a urinalysis test years later. The district court dismissed all of his claims, and Hamilton appealed.

On appeal, the court examined whether Hamilton had adequately alleged facts to support his legal theories. With respect to the prison officials named as defendants, the court found that Hamilton had not sufficiently pleaded that they knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to his health—the standard required to establish deliberate indifference. Regarding the pharmaceutical companies, the court determined that Hamilton failed to allege sufficient facts showing these private entities were acting under governmental authority, which is necessary for a § 1983 claim to proceed against them.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded deliberate indifference by prison officials to serious medical needs
Whether private pharmaceutical companies acted under color of state law
Standards for pleading constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Procedural posture

Hamilton appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David Hamilton appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hamiltons claims against defendants Wong, Smith, and the unnamed MRI specialist because Hamilton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding his exposure to gadolinium during a magnetic resonance imaging scan or the denial of a urinalysis years later. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoners health).

The district court properly dismissed Hamiltons claims against defendants Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical Inc. and McKesson Pharmaceuticals Corp. because Hamilton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted under color of state law. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092-96 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a § 1983 plaintiff must show the defendant “acted under color of state law” and the tests to determine state action; the central question is whether the alleged constitutional violation is fairly attributable to the government).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.