Christopher Jones v. Dwight Neven
678 F. App'x 490
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones, a prisoner, sued prison officials under the Eighth Amendment alleging: failure to inform him he tested positive for hepatitis C; exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); and inhumane sleeping/lighting conditions in solitary confinement.
- Medical records show Jones tested positive for hepatitis C in Feb., Mar., and June 2004 and had elevated liver enzymes during that period; defendants did not inform him of the diagnosis and a defendant prescribed 800 mg ibuprofen three times daily while he had hepatitis C.
- Jones complained that the ibuprofen made him very ill and that the prescription posed a significant risk of liver damage given his hepatitis C diagnosis.
- For ETS, Jones alleged only that his cellmate was a “heavy smoker” and smoking was permitted in the shared cell with closed windows.
- For conditions of confinement, Jones alleged he was forced to sleep on the floor without a mattress for four days and was subjected to constant illumination for 96 hours.
- Procedural posture: District court granted summary judgment for defendants; Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part—reversing as to the hepatitis C/medical care claim and affirming or granting qualified immunity on the ETS, mattress, and lighting claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (hepatitis C) | Jones: defendants failed to inform him of positive hepatitis C tests and prescribed contraindicated high-dose ibuprofen, causing risk and pain | Defendants: no deliberate indifference; treatment was reasonable care for back pain and liver tests normalized; no clear constitutional violation | Reversed: genuine dispute of material fact as to deliberate indifference; qualified immunity denied based on prior precedent |
| Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) | Jones: housed with a “heavy smoker” in a cell where smoking was allowed and windows closed, posing an unreasonable future-health risk | Defendants: exposure was not shown to be to unreasonably high levels; allegations lacking specificity | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently high levels of ETS to state an Eighth Amendment claim |
| Mattress deprivation (sleeping on floor) | Jones: forced to sleep on floor without mattress for four days, constituting cruel and unusual punishment | Defendants: short deprivation and not clearly established as unconstitutional at the time | Affirmed (qualified immunity): no clearly established law that brief mattress deprivation was unconstitutional |
| Constant illumination for 96 hours | Jones: constant lighting for four days violated Eighth Amendment | Defendants: four days not clearly established as a constitutional violation in 2006 | Affirmed (qualified immunity): constant illumination unconstitutional in some cases, but not clearly established for a four-day period then |
Key Cases Cited
- Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference standard for inadequate medical care)
- Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2016) (seriousness of chronic diseases for Eighth Amendment purposes)
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (hepatitis C is a serious medical condition)
- Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity requires clearly established constitutional right)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (ETS exposure and unreasonable risk standard under Eighth Amendment)
- Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (uncertainty about mattress deprivation as an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (constant illumination can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2000) (deprivations must be lengthy or ongoing to form objective basis of a violation)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity and clearly established law)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (subjective deliberate indifference standard for medical claims)