ANDRICH v. ARPAIO ADC ADC XI XX ADC XYZ NP RN NP LLC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-10No. No. 20-15950

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the county defendants because Andrich failed to establish that the defendants acted with objective deliberate indifference to serious dental needs or exposed him to a substantial risk of serious harm, and his claims amounted only to a disagreement over the appropriate course of treatment.

Devin Andrich brought a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against county defendants, claiming that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated through deliberate indifference to his dental care needs while he was detained pretrial. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing his claims, and Andrich appealed. The appellate court reviewed the case from scratch and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that Andrich did not present sufficient evidence that the defendants acted with the level of recklessness required to show deliberate indifference to serious dental needs or that they subjected him to a substantial risk of serious harm. The court noted that Andrich's situation differed significantly from cases where facilities had continuously denied care for severe, emergency dental problems causing intense pain to the detainee.

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

Key issues

Whether county defendants acted with deliberate indifference to pretrial detainee's dental care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Whether detainee demonstrated serious dental needs requiring emergency treatment
Distinction between deliberate indifference and mere difference of opinion regarding medical treatment

Procedural posture

Andrich appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in his favor for the county defendants in a pretrial detainee dental care civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Devin Andrich appeals the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the county defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee dental care claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper for the county defendants. Andrich failed to establish that the defendants acted with objective deliberate indifference to serious dental needs or put Andrich at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm. See id. at 1124-25 (setting forth the elements of a Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee medical care claim). This case is not like Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), where the prison continued to deny care for severe, emergency dental problems while the inmate experienced severe pain. At most, Andrich established a difference of opinion regarding his dental care. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125 (requiring “something akin to reckless disregard”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a difference of opinion regarding treatment does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.