Carlos Ortega v. Mark Ritchie
708 F. App'x 446
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Ortega, a pretrial detainee at Santa Clara County Main Jail, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious mental-health needs.
- The district court granted summary judgment for multiple jail medical staff, supervisors, and municipalities.
- Ortega also sued two witnesses for testimony in another case and asserted municipal and supervisory liability claims.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court treated Ortega’s summary-judgment motions as oppositions and granted judgment against him.
- Ortega appealed pro se; Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary-judgment rulings de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to mental-health needs | Ortega argued defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his mental conditions | Defendants argued treatment differences, negligence, or malpractice do not show deliberate indifference | Court: No genuine dispute; differences of opinion/medical negligence insufficient for deliberate indifference under Toguchi/Lolli |
| Witness testimony liability | Ortega sought damages against Meade and Ferry for testimony in another action | Defendants invoked absolute witness immunity for courtroom testimony | Court: Absolute immunity applies; summary judgment proper for Meade and Ferry |
| Supervisory liability | Ortega claimed supervisors Flores, Sepulveda, Smith liable for his treatment | Defendants argued no underlying constitutional violation to support supervisory liability | Court: No triable issue because no underlying constitutional violation; supervisory claims fail |
| Municipal liability (City/County) | Ortega alleged claims against City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara | Defendants argued Ortega failed to plead facts sufficient for municipal liability | Court: Dismissal proper; pro se pleadings insufficient to state plausible municipal § 1983 claim |
| Procedural treatment of motions | Ortega contended the district court mischaracterized his summary-judgment motions | Defendants maintained the court correctly treated them as oppositions | Court: Rejected Ortega’s contention as unsupported by record |
| New arguments on appeal | Ortega raised new arguments/claims for first time on appeal | Defendants opposed consideration of new arguments | Court: Declined to consider arguments raised first on appeal (Padgett) |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference standard for prison medical claims)
- Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee medical claims analyzed under Due Process but standards align)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements for pretrial detainee failure-to-protect claims)
- Paine v. City of Lompoc, 265 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (absolute immunity for witnesses’ testimony)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983)
- Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (no supervisory liability absent underlying constitutional violation)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings but must state plausible claim)
- Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 1997) (standards for municipal liability under § 1983)
- Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994) (no municipal liability without underlying constitutional violation)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments raised first on appeal are not considered)