Lunsford

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

JERIMIE LUNSFORD, Civ. No. 6:25-cv-02284-AA

Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

v.

STATE OF OREGON; BENJAMIN

SMITH; WARREN ROBERTS; KAREN

HARRIS; AIMEE HUGHES,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

AIKEN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant

Warren Roberts. ECF No. 5. The Court concludes that this motion is appropriate for

resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is

GRANTED and the claims against Dr. Roberts are dismissed with leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading standards, a

pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim and allege “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While a pleading does not require “detailed factual allegations,”

it needs more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 677-78. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a

sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678. Legal

conclusions without any supporting factual allegations do not need to be accepted as

true. Id.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jerimie Lunsford is in the custody of the Oregon Department of

Corrections (“ODOC”) at the Oregon State Penitentiary (“OSP”). Compl. ¶ 2.

Plaintiff’s treating medical providers at OSP are Defendants Dr. Benjamin Smith and

nurse practitioner Karen Harris. Compl. ¶¶ 3-4. Dr. Smith and Ms. Harris “provided

medical consultation, examination, and/or treatment to Plaintiff” at OSP. Id.

Defendant Dr. Warren Roberts was the Chief of Medicine for ODOC from

December 2020 through February 2025. Compl. ¶ 5. Roberts “was responsible for

final approval or denial of surgical and specialty care” and “provided oversight of all

ODOC health services’ medical professionals and also provided care to AIC [“Adult-

in-Custody”] patients at all ODOC facilities.” Id.

Defendant Aimee Hughes was the Health Services Administrator for ODOC

since March 2021 and, in that capacity, “is responsible for leading, directing, and

controlling all ODOC health services activities and ensuring their compliance with

state and federal laws.” Compl. ¶ 6.

“Inmates in Oregon state prisons must obtain approval from a Therapeutic

Level of Care (TLC) Committee to receive everything from fish oil supplements to

pain relief medications to medical scans needed to diagnose and provide adequate

medical care.” Compl. ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that “many of these critical decisions”

are made by Dr. Roberts. Id. ¶ 9. “Though the TLC is ostensibly a committee,

members typically present cases to Defendant Roberts, who solely determines

whether an inmate is worthy or unworthy of treatment.” Id.

In August 2021, Plaintiff reported blood in his stool and “was told that it was

from ulcers and that Plaintiff needed a colonoscopy.” Compl. ¶ 16. In April 2023,

Plaintiff was seen by a gastrologist and Plaintiff informed her that “for at least the

last 18 months, Plaintiff had been experiencing diarrhea and the ODOC medical did

nothing about it and told Plaintiff he was overreacting.” Id. ¶ 18. The gastrologist

stated that Plaintiff needed an endoscopy and colonoscopy. Id. No endoscopy or

colonoscopy was performed, and Plaintiff alleges that his condition grew worse. Id.

¶¶ 18-19.

On October 16, 2023, ODOC took a blood draw from Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 20.

Plaintiff alleges that he should have been taken to the hospital based on the results

of the blood draw, but that he was not taken to the hospital. Id.

On October 20, 2024, Plaintiff felt ill and went to medical where his blood draw

results were reviewed. Compl. ¶ 21. Following the review, Plaintiff was transported

to the emergency room where he received a blood transfusion and a CT scan. Id. The

CT scan “revealed a hardened mass in his sigmoid colon and cancer was suspected.”

Id.

On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff had a colonoscopy that revealed colon cancer.

Compl. ¶ 22. “Further testing revealed that the cancer had metastasized to Plaintiff’s

lymph nodes.” Id.

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff learned that he has a 3mm kidney stone. Compl.

¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that he had complained about abdominal pain to Dr. Smith for

six months prior to the CT scan but that Dr. Smith “ignored his complaints.” Id.

Plaintiff alleges that he was not transported for his chemotherapy

appointment on January 24, 2024, and that ODOC medical staff failed to schedule

his weekly appointment. Compl. ¶ 27.

Dr. Roberts removed this case from Marion County Circuit Court to federal

court on December 8, 2025. ECF No. 1. This motion followed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff bring claims for (1) violation of his Eighth Amendment rights

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual Defendants and (2) negligence

against the State of Oregon. Dr. Roberts moves to dismiss the claims against him

based on failure to state a claim and qualified immunity.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a federal cause of action against any person

who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights.” Conn v.

Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999). To maintain a claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff

must both (1) allege the deprivation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or

statutory law, and (2) allege that the deprivation was committed by a person acting

under color of state law.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006).

Here, Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Roberts concerns the failure to provide

adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. Prison officials and physicians

violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment

when they act with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To sustain this claim, a plaintiff must

establish the existence of a “serious medical need” and show that the defendant’s

“response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). The deliberate indifference prong “is satisfied by showing (a) a

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and

(b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “A prison official acts with deliberate

indifference only if the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted, cleaned up). This standard “requires

more than ordinary lack of due care.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th

Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The official must both

be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

serious harm exists, and he must also draw that inference.” Id. (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). “Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical

condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.”

Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where,

as here, an inmate alleges that the delay in medical treatment amounts to deliberate

indifference, he must show that the delay caused “significant harm and Defendants

should have known this to be the case.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th

Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, Dr. Roberts asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against him

because Plaintiff does not allege, except in the most conclusory terms, that Dr.

Roberts was ever involved in or even aware of Plaintiff’s medical condition or

treatment or in the alleged denial or delay in care. The Complaint alleges that

Plaintiff’s treating providers were Dr. Smith and Ms. Harris. Dr. Roberts, as chief of

medicine, is alleged to have been part, and perhaps the deciding part, of the TLC

Committee that approves inmate medical care but there is no clear allegation that

Plaintiff’s medical issues were referred to the TLC Committee or that Dr. Roberts

made any decision connected to Plaintiff’s care. The Court concludes that Plaintiff

has failed to sufficiently allege a direct role by Dr. Roberts in his Eighth Amendment

injury.

In addition to alleging a direct role, Plaintiff also seeks to hold Dr. Roberts

liable under a theory of supervisory liability. “Government officials may not be held

liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of

respondeat superior.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. “Because vicarious liability is

inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official

defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the

Constitution.” Id. “A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if

there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional

deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful

conduct and the constitutional violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th

Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). Under either

theory, “a plaintiff must show the supervisor breached a duty to plaintiff which was

the proximate cause of the injury.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). “The requisite causal connection can be established by setting in motion a

series of acts by others, or by knowingly refusing to terminate a series of acts by

others, which the supervisor knew or reasonably should have known would cause

others to inflict a constitutional injury.” Id. at 1207-08 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted, cleaned up). The Ninth Circuit has explained, however, that a court

should not accept “wholly conclusory” allegations that supervisor reviewed and

approved the plans of the supervisor’s reports as supporting that the supervisor knew

of resulting allegedly unconstitutional conduct. Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d

1102, 1110 (9th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff argues that Dr. Roberts, in his “supervisory and policymaking role[ ],

knew of, acquiesced in, and perpetuated a system of inadequate medical care within

ODOC that resulted in widespread denial and delay of necessary treatment,”; that he

“failed to train, supervise, or discipline subordinate staff regarding constitutional

standards of care,”; and that he “failed to correct known unconstitutional practices—

including unilateral denial of medical treatment by the TLC system and systemic

delay in specialist referrals.” Compl. ¶¶ 40-42. Specific to Dr. Roberts, Plaintiff

alleges that Dr. Roberts “directly and personally participated in and established

ODOC medical care policies and procedures that prioritized budgetary constraints

and ‘key performance measures’ over inmate medical need, resulting in systemic

denial and delay of medically necessary care.” Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiff alleges that these

policies and Dr. Roberts’ actions were the moving force behind his injury. Id. ¶ 46.

Once again, however, Plaintiff’s allegations against Roberts are conclusory.

They rely on the TLC Committee system and the denial of care based on cost metrics,

and Roberts’s alleged role in both, but there is no clear allegation that Plaintiff’s

condition or proposed treatment were ever referred to a TLC Committee or denied

based on cost. “[W]hen ‘there is no allegation of a specific policy implemented by the

Defendant or a specific event or events instigated by the Defendant,’ the Ninth Circuit

has made clear that a complaint is too conclusory to plausibly state a claim.” Munoz

v. Oregon, Case No. 6:22-cv-1348-SI, 2025 WL 3187572, at *6 (D. Or. Nov. 14, 2025)

(quoting Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012), cleaned up, emphasis

in original). The Court concludes that the Complaint, as presently pleaded, falls short

of establishing such a specific event instigated by Dr. Roberts or specific policy

implemented by Dr. Roberts was the cause of Plaintiff’s injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff

has failed to state a claim for supervisory liability for which Dr. Roberts should be

personally held liable.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of

his Eighth Amendment rights against Dr. Roberts and so the motion to dismiss will

be granted. Because these defects might be remedied by the allegation of additional

facts, dismissal shall be with leave to amend. Because the claims are subject to

dismissal on other grounds, the Court need not reach Dr. Roberts’ qualified immunity

argument.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is

GRANTED. The claims against Defendant Warren Roberts are DISMISSED with

leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to

submit an amended complaint.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this 30th day of April 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken

ANN AIKEN

United States District Judge