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 Solvey's retaliation, safety, and diabetes/seizure medication claims, but reversed the dismissal of his deliberate indifference claim regarding inadequate pain medication during surgical preparation and remanded that claim for further proceedings.

Stanley Solvey, a California state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his federal civil rights lawsuit against prison officials, asserting claims of deliberate indifference and retaliation. The district court had dismissed all claims, finding that Solvey failed to allege sufficient facts to establish plausible legal claims. On appeal, the court found most of Solvey's allegations too thin to survive dismissal, including his retaliation claim and claims regarding denial of safety measures and medication for diabetes and seizures. However, the court determined that Solvey's allegation regarding one defendant's refusal to provide adequate pain medication while awaiting testicular cyst surgery stated a potentially viable claim when read generously in light of his pro se status.

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

Key issues

Pleading standards for prisoner civil rights complaints filed pro se
Whether allegations of pain medication denial state a claim for deliberate indifference
Distinction between deliberate indifference and medical negligence or treatment disagreements

Procedural posture

A federal district court dismissed Solvey's § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state plausible claims, and Solvey appealed.

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.