Cecil Fairley v. Steve Shelton, 664 F. App'x 616

Cecil Fairley, an Oregon prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and improper denial of prison grievances.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Fairley appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit.
Claims included: denial of grievance procedures, failure to follow Dr. Carpenter’s recommendation for knee surgery, and failure to follow Dr. Turner’s recommendation for lumbar epidural steroid injections and follow-up treatment.
Fairley named several defendants (including Gower, Hoefel, Peters, Morrow, Franke, Shelton) asserting both direct and supervisory liability for his medical care.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether there were genuine disputes of material fact on personal involvement, causation, and deliberate indifference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of grievance procedure violated constitutional rights	Fairley argued improper denial of grievances violated his rights	Defendants argued prisoners have no constitutional right to a specific grievance procedure	Denied — no constitutional entitlement to specific grievance procedures (affirmed)
Whether supervisory defendants were liable for deliberate indifference	Fairley contended supervisors caused or were responsible for constitutional violations	Defendants argued lack of personal involvement or causation by supervisors	Denied — no genuine dispute that supervisors personally caused or were involved in violations
Whether failure to follow treating doctors’ recommendations amounted to deliberate indifference	Fairley said ignoring surgeon and specialist recommendations showed deliberate indifference to serious needs	Defendants said differences in treatment choices or alleged negligence do not equal deliberate indifference	Denied — treatment disputes/medical disagreement or negligence insufficient to show deliberate indifference
Whether district court improperly weighed evidence or considered declarations	Fairley argued district court mishandled Shelton’s declaration and failed to accept his factual version	Defendants argued court properly resolved summary judgment record and issues of preserved arguments	Denied — court properly considered evidence; many arguments unpreserved on appeal

Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of appellate review and affirming on any basis supported by the record)
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires knowing disregard of an excessive risk; disagreement about treatment is not deliberate indifference)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must show chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief are not considered on appeal)
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) (appellate courts will not manufacture arguments for an appellant)