SOLVEY v. GATES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-30No. No. 20-16790

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims regarding retaliation, safety-related indifference, and medication indifference for diabetes and seizures, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim regarding pain medication withheld by Zepp during the testicular cyst treatment.

Stanley Solvey, a California state prisoner appearing without counsel, challenged a federal court's dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The suit alleged deliberate indifference and retaliation. The appellate court reviewed the dismissals without deference to the district court's legal conclusions. Most of Solvey's claims failed because he did not provide enough factual detail to suggest a viable legal theory. Specifically, his retaliation claim, his safety-related indifference claim, and his claims about inadequate diabetes and seizure medications all lacked sufficient factual allegations under the stringent legal standards governing such prison condition cases.

However, Solvey's allegation that a prison official named Zepp withheld adequate pain medication while he awaited surgery for a testicular cyst presented a different situation. When interpreted generously—as courts must do for self-represented litigants—these particular allegations contained enough factual content to suggest a plausible claim of deliberate indifference. Therefore, the court partly reversed the dismissal as to the Zepp claim and returned the case for continued litigation on that theory.

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

Key issues

Pleading standards for pro se prisoners bringing deliberate indifference claims
When inadequate pain medication constitutes deliberate indifference rather than medical disagreement
Sufficiency of factual allegations to survive dismissal in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights cases

Procedural posture

Solvey appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 action challenging prison conditions and official conduct.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Stanley H. Solvey appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Solveys claims for retaliation, deliberate indifference to safety, and deliberate indifference regarding his diabetes and seizure medications because Solvey failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (explaining that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if the prison official “knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prisoner context); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court dismissed Solveys claims for deliberate indifference regarding defendant Zepps treatment of Solveys testicular cyst because Solvey failed to state a plausible claim. However, Solvey alleged that Zepp refused to provide Solvey with sufficient pain medication as he awaited surgery. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to warrant ordering [Zepp] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference standard). We therefore reverse the judgment on this claim only and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.