Aaron Van Neubarth v. Collete Peters
20-35539
| 9th Cir. | Dec 20, 2021Background
- Aaron Van Neubarth, an Oregon state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (gastrointestinal problems and an umbilical hernia) and named Dravis as a defendant.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing claims about Neubarth’s gastrointestinal issues and hernia because those matters had been decided in a prior valid final proceeding (issue preclusion).
- The district court also granted summary judgment for Dravis on the remaining claims, finding Neubarth failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not show remedies were effectively unavailable.
- The district court denied Neubarth’s motions for a preliminary injunction and for appointment of counsel.
- Neubarth appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusion of GI and hernia claims | Neubarth said merits support deliberate indifference for those conditions | Prior proceeding resolved the same issues; preclusion applies | Summary judgment affirmed — issue preclusion under Oregon law bars relitigation |
| Exhaustion re: Dravis | Neubarth argued he exhausted or that remedies were unavailable | Neubarth failed to exhaust; administrative remedy was available | Summary judgment affirmed — failure to exhaust; plaintiff didn't show remedies unavailable |
| Preliminary injunction | Neubarth sought injunctive relief, alleging likely success and irreparable harm | No likelihood of success or irreparable harm shown | Denied — Neubarth failed to meet factors for preliminary injunction |
| Appointment of counsel | Neubarth requested counsel due to complexity and inability to litigate effectively | No exceptional circumstances to require appointment | Denied — no exceptional circumstances demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims on appeal)
- ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014) (state-court judgments' preclusive effect governed by state preclusion principles)
- Nelson v. Emerald People’s Util. Dist., 862 P.2d 1293 (Or. 1993) (elements of issue preclusion under Oregon law)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion requires using all agency steps and doing so properly)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (burden shifts to prisoner to show administrative remedies were effectively unavailable)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (appointment of counsel requires exceptional circumstances)