finding qualified immunity 14 where prison medical officials determined the medical equipment at issue was not 15 medically necessary
How later courts described this case
- finding qualified immunity 14 where prison medical officials determined the medical equipment at issue was not 15 medically necessary
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 05 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEON THOMAS, No. 15-55313
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:10-cv-02671-JGB-CW
v.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA; and MEMORANDUM*
BRADLEY JURGENSEN,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 10, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
In this Bivens1 action brought by federal prisoner Leon Thomas, Defendants
Francisco Quintana and Bradley Jurgensen appeal the district court’s denial of their
motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. As to Jurgensen, we
affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s decision. As to Quintana, we
reverse the district court’s decision.
Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts
taken most favorably to the party alleging injury show that the official violated a
constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the
time of the alleged injury such that a reasonable official would understand his
actions violated the law. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (citing
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)).
1. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Thomas supports a
finding that Jurgensen violated Thomas’ clearly established constitutional right to
be free from “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” while incarcerated,
by denying Thomas adequate cell accommodations. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90
F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)).
Prison officials must provide accommodations to prisoners with disabilities so that
1
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
they can attend to their basic needs, including showering and using the toilet,
without risking injury. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998); see
also LaFaut v. Smith, 834 F.2d 389, 394 (4th Cir. 1987).
Thomas has presented evidence that the accommodations in Cell 137 created
an objective risk of “significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Cell 137 lacked rails outside
the shower and a lifting device, such as a trapeze or grab-bar, above the bed. Until
April 2010, the cell also lacked rails around the toilet, and until June 2010 the
lower shower button was broken.2 Without these cell accommodations Thomas
could not safely shower, use the toilet, and move to, from, and within, the bed. As
a result, Thomas fell several times, injuring his back and leg. For Thomas, an
2
At this stage of the proceedings, we accept as true Thomas’ statements
that there were no rails around the toilet and that the shower button was broken.
See Carrillo v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 798 F.3d 1210, 1218 (9th Cir. 2015).
Defendants’ argument that only Thomas’ “self-serving” testimony supports these
facts misunderstands the applicable standard. At the summary judgment stage, a
court may not “disregard a piece of evidence . . . solely based on its self-serving
nature.” Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th Cir. 2015).
“[D]eclarations are often self-serving, and this is properly so because the party
submitting it would use the declaration to support his or her position.” Id.
Thomas’ statements regarding the toilet rails and shower button are based on his
personal knowledge, and are internally consistent, so there is no reason to discredit
them at this stage of the proceedings. See id.
3
amputee weighing over 300 pounds, a fall from the toilet, or while transferring to
and from the shower or bed, could result in significant injury and pain.
Jurgensen acted with “deliberate indifference” because he “kn[ew] of and
disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Thomas’] health.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994). Jurgensen had notice of the inadequacy of the accommodations
in Cell 137 as they related to Thomas’ disability. Thomas presented evidence that
he complained to Jurgensen about these issues more than fifteen times while
Jurgensen made his rounds of the institution where Thomas was housed.
According to Thomas, Jurgensen observed the absence of rails around the toilet
and outside the shower in Cell 137, but neglected to remedy the situation. Thomas
requested that Jurgensen see to it that a lifting device was installed, but Jurgensen
declined to provide that accommodation.3 Thomas also presented evidence that he
informed Jurgensen that he had fallen and injured himself several times because of
the lack of rails around the toilet and outside the shower. The record thus supports
3
Jurgensen indicates that the Assistant Health Services Administrator,
Louis Sterling, advised him Thomas should not be allowed a trapeze in his cell and
that such a device was not medically necessary. However, Sterling is not a medical
practitioner, and, moreover, Jurgensen did not provide an alternative lifting device
to remedy the underlying problem: Thomas’ inability to safely lift himself in and
out of, and move within, his bed.
4
a finding that Jurgensen was deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to
Thomas’ health.
In contrast, the record does not show that Quintana was made aware of the
specific deficiencies of Thomas’ cell. Thomas avers that he spoke to Quintana
three times about his dissatisfaction with his cell and his desire for greater
disability accommodations, but the record does not describe what, if any, details
Thomas told Quintana. Nor does the record suggest that Quintana knew Thomas
had fallen because of the inadequate accommodations. Although Thomas
submitted administrative remedy requests to Quintana while he was housed in Cell
137, those requests did not raise the specific defects in the cell itself. In the only
remedy request from the relevant time period to which Quintana himself
responded, Thomas requested that his back brace and wheelchair cushion be
returned, and that he be transferred to a care level three institution.4 Thomas’ other
administrative remedy requests likewise did not put Quintana on notice about the
absence of adequate rails and a lifting device, or the broken shower button: the
4
Thomas attached a handwritten complaint letter addressed to Quintana
and dated February 24, 2010 to his Lodged Complaint. But there is no allegation
that the letter was sent or received, nor was the letter attached to the complaint as
filed.
5
other requests either did not mention those deficiencies, or were addressed to, and
handled by, other prison officials.
2. With respect to the medical equipment, we find that neither Quintana nor
Jurgensen violated clearly established law by showing “deliberate indifference to
[Thomas’] serious medical needs.” See Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332 (citing Estelle, 429
U.S. at 104). Thomas maintains that both the back brace and the wheelchair
cushion were necessary to manage his pain and other symptoms. But two different
prison medical officers determined that a back brace was not medically necessary.
Moreover, medical evaluations revealed no ulcers, lesions, or other skin sores after
Thomas was provided an extra-wide wheelchair. The evidence in the record does
not, therefore, indicate that the denial of the medical equipment caused an
“excessive risk to [Thomas’] health.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Accordingly, we
reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to Thomas’
allegations related to the denial of a back brace and wheelchair cushion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
6