JACKSON v. SOLTANIAN ZADEH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-28No. No. 20-15851

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity, concluding that Jackson's right to protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established and that a reasonable official would have known that failing to provide a lower bunk assignment was unlawful under the circumstances.

Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh, a defendant in a civil rights case, appealed the district court's decision to deny him qualified immunity. Jackson sued under federal civil rights law, claiming the doctor acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by refusing to assign him a lower bunk. The appellate court reviewed the district court's ruling and found that Jackson had established a clearly recognized constitutional right not to be subjected to deliberate indifference regarding his health, and that a reasonable official would have understood that denying the lower bunk assignment violated that right under the circumstances presented.

The appellate court upheld the district court's determination that qualified immunity was unavailable to the doctor. The court noted it could not revisit the factual dispute about whether the defendant was deliberately indifferent to Jackson's health on this interlocutory appeal, as such factual findings fall outside the limited scope of review available in an appeal from a qualified immunity denial.

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

Key issues

Whether qualified immunity applies to a medical official accused of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
Whether a clearly established right existed regarding lower bunk assignment
Scope of review in interlocutory appeals from qualified immunity denials

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed an interlocutory order from the district court denying his motion for qualified immunity in Jackson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Dr. Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh appeals from the district courts order denying him qualified immunity in plaintiff Johnell Jacksons 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 771-73, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014). We review de novo the district courts summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriffs Dept, 872 F.3d 938, 946 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that, resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in Jacksons favor, Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh is not entitled to qualified immunity because Jacksons right to be free from deliberate indifference to an excessive risk to his health was clearly established, and a reasonable official would have known that failing to provide for a lower bunk assignment was unlawful under the circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (setting forth two-part test for qualified immunity); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (1997) (en banc) (“A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoners condition could result in further significant injury[.]”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

To the extent defendant challenges the district courts finding that the record shows a “genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was at least deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs health or safety by not ordering that plaintiff be restricted to a lower bunk,” we lack jurisdiction to consider this finding in this interlocutory appeal. See George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 834-36 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining limited scope of review of an interlocutory appeal involving denial of qualified immunity).

AFFIRMED.