Anthony Merrick v. Charles Ryan, 708 F. App'x 396

Background

Anthony James Merrick, an Arizona state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious spinal/back medical needs and sought damages and prospective relief.
Defendants included Dr. Barcklay-Dodson and Ryan (sued in individual and official capacities); Merrick also asserted ADA and retaliation claims.
The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed various claims; Merrick appealed pro se. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and for abuse of discretion where applicable.
The district court found no genuine dispute that defendants’ medical treatment differences did not rise to deliberate indifference and that no policy or custom supported prospective relief.
The district court dismissed the ADA and retaliation claims for failure to plead required elements and denied motions to supplement pleadings and to appoint counsel as prejudicial or unsupported by exceptional circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deliberate indifference (Dr. Barcklay-Dodson, Ryan individual)	Merrick: treatment of spinal/back issues amounted to deliberate indifference	Defendants: medical care choices and differing opinions do not show deliberate indifference	Affirmed—no genuine dispute that treatment differences do not meet deliberate indifference standard (Toguchi)
Ryan (official capacity) — damages immunity	Merrick sought official-capacity damages against Ryan	Ryan: entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for state officials sued in official capacity	Affirmed—Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state officials in official capacity
Prospective relief (policy or custom)	Merrick: sought prospective relief based on alleged policies causing violations	Defendants: no evidence of an official policy/custom causing constitutional violation	Affirmed—Merrick failed to show policy or custom causation for §1983 relief
ADA claim	Merrick: alleged discrimination under the ADA arising from disability-related treatment	Defendants: allegations describe inadequate treatment, not discrimination because of disability	Affirmed—ADA requires discrimination because of disability, not inadequate care
Retaliation claim	Merrick: defendants retaliated against him for protected speech	Defendants: no causal link and speech not shown protected	Affirmed—pleading insufficient to establish causation or protected speech
Motion to supplement pleadings (Rule 15(d))	Merrick: sought to supplement operative complaint with additional facts	Defendants: supplement would prejudice them; untimely/additive	Affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion; prejudice justified denial
Motion to appoint counsel	Merrick: requested appointed counsel due to complexity and pro se status	Defendants: no exceptional circumstances shown	Affirmed—no exceptional circumstances to justify appointment

Key Cases Cited

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires knowing disregard of excessive risk; medical disagreement insufficient)
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for dismissal under §1915A)
Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state officials in official capacity)
Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements for §1983 claim against private entity performing government function; policy/custom causation)
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination, not inadequate treatment)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements for prison-retaliation claim)
Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988) (standard for denying Rule 15(d) supplementation when prejudice exists)
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for appointment of counsel; exceptional circumstances required)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts do not consider issues not raised distinctly in opening brief)