Cion Peralta v. T. Dillard, 704 F.3d 1124

Peralta, an inmate at Lancaster in 2004–2006, asserted deliberate indifference in dental care by Dr. Brooks and others.
He complained of cavities, bleeding gums, and pain; filed Form 602 appeals; reception included waiting lists and staff shortages.
Dr. Brooks examined Peralta once in Oct 2004, planned extraction, but did not fully treat underlying dental issues.
By Jan 2005 and Dec 2005 visits, Peralta’s care remained limited; attempts to address pain and infection were incomplete.
District court granted JMOL for Dillard/Fitter and the jury found no deliberate indifference by Brooks; the appeal challenged the jury instruction on resources.
The central issue on appeal was whether it was proper to instruct the jury that funding/resources could excuse failure to treat under the Eighth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the resource-based jury instruction misstated the law	Peralta argues resources cannot shield deliberate indifference	Brooks argues instruction correctly accounts for duties within resource limits	Affirmed; instruction upheld as proper

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (serious medical need and deliberate indifference standards)
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628 (9th Cir.1988) (distinguishes injunctive vs. damages; individualized liability)
Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769 (9th Cir.1986) (budget constraints do not justify cruel punishment for damages)
Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2012) (budget or resource constraints not a shield for denial of care)
Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.2009) (harmless-error standard for instructional error in civil cases)