Brian Porter v. Cherylee Wegman
671 F. App'x 442
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Brian Ellis Porter, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment medical indifference, First Amendment free exercise violations, and supervisory liability related to dietary accommodations.
- Porter was removed from a kosher diet, placed on a vegetarian diet, and alleges denial of requested dietary accommodations during multi-day Passover observances.
- Defendants included medical staff (Grewal), a supervisor (Castro), and a prison official who changed diet assignments (Wegman).
- The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants; Porter appealed pro se.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and evaluated deliberate indifference, supervisory liability, free-exercise claims, and qualified immunity for Wegman.
- The panel affirmed summary judgment for Grewal (Eighth Amendment) and Castro (supervisory liability), reversed as to Wegman on free-exercise/qualified immunity grounds, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (Grewal) | Grewal provided constitutionally inadequate medical treatment. | Treatment differences reflect medical judgment, not deliberate indifference. | Affirmed — no genuine dispute that treatment was medically unacceptable and chosen in conscious disregard. |
| Supervisory liability (Castro) | Castro is liable for Porter’s constitutional injuries as a supervisor. | Castro lacked personal involvement or causal connection to any deprivation. | Affirmed — no genuine dispute of Castro’s personal involvement. |
| Free exercise of religion (Wegman) — diet changes & Passover accommodations | Removing Porter from kosher, forcing vegetarian diet, and denying Passover accommodations violated Porter’s free exercise rights. | Wegman’s actions were authorized and insulated by qualified immunity. | Reversed — genuine dispute exists whether Wegman violated free-exercise rights. |
| Qualified immunity (Wegman) | Wegman is not entitled to qualified immunity because the right was clearly established. | Wegman reasonably relied on policies/regulations authorizing the conduct. | Reversed in part — factual dispute whether policies authorized conduct; immunity not resolved for summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference in medical care)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisor liability requires personal involvement or a causal connection)
- Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (qualified immunity framework for established religious-rights claims)
- McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoners entitled to food sufficient for health that satisfies religious dietary laws)
- Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1994) (existence of statute or ordinance authorizing conduct may bear on reasonableness for qualified immunity)