MORE v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, A.D.O.C. at Central Office, individual/official; et al., Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-03No. No. 19-16808

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that More failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

Michael More, a former Arizona prisoner, sued state officials under federal civil rights law claiming they deliberately ignored serious medical problems involving chest pain and a defibrillator device. The district court dismissed the case before trial, finding More had not presented enough evidence of a genuine factual dispute. More appealed arguing the officials' conduct violated his constitutional rights.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal. To prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, a prisoner must show that officials actually knew about and consciously disregarded a serious health risk. The court explained that mere medical mistakes, disagreements over treatment choices, or simple negligence do not rise to the level of constitutional violation. Because More failed to produce evidence establishing the officials' deliberate indifference rather than just poor judgment or differing medical opinions, summary judgment was appropriate.

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

Key issues

Whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to inmate's serious medical conditions
Distinction between deliberate indifference and medical negligence or malpractice
Standards for supervisory liability under civil rights law

Procedural posture

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on More's § 1983 civil rights action, and More appealed pro se.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Former Arizona state prisoner Michael More appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because More failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in responding to his chest pain and defibrillator issues. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.