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 to Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh, concluding that the plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established and that a reasonable official would have known the failure to provide a lower bunk assignment was unlawful.

Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh appealed the denial of qualified immunity in a civil rights case where an inmate alleged the doctor was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs by refusing to assign him a lower bunk. The district court found that Jackson's right to protection from such indifference was clearly established and that a reasonable official would have known the bunk assignment denial was unlawful given the circumstances. The appellate court reviewed the qualified immunity question de novo and found the district court's reasoning sound on both prongs of the qualified immunity test.

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 provider's failure to arrange appropriate bunk assignment
Whether the right to protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established
Whether a reasonable official would have known the conduct violated constitutional law

Procedural posture

Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh appealed the district court's order denying his motion for qualified immunity in the plaintiff's Section 1983 civil rights suit.

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.