930 F.3d 1090
9th Cir.2019Background
- Disability Rights Montana (DRM), the federally designated PAIMI advocacy agency for Montana, sued the Montana DOC Director and Montana State Prison Warden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations on behalf of all prisoners with serious mental illness at Montana State Prison.
- DRM’s complaint alleged systemic policies: prolonged solitary confinement (22–24 hours/day for weeks/months), behavior-management plans using isolation, lack of standards to assess harm from isolation, failures to diagnose/treat serious mental illness (including withholding medication), and no robust mental-health classification, review, or auditing systems.
- The complaint included detailed, graphic examples of individual plaintiffs whose conditions worsened, who were denied medication, and whose treatment allegedly contributed to several suicides.
- DRM alleged DOC defendants had notice of the problems through lawsuits, grievances, certification processes, and direct complaints from DRM, supporting deliberate indifference.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), apparently confusing this case with a separate due-process case; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and reversed, remanding for further proceedings and ordering reassignment to a different district judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRM plausibly pleaded an Eighth Amendment claim for systemic deliberate indifference to prisoners with serious mental illness | DRM: complaint alleges policies/practices that create a substantial risk of serious harm and facts showing DOC knew yet acted with deliberate indifference | DOC: dismissal appropriate under Twombly/Iqbal; challenged standing under PLRA and sufficiency of allegations | Held: Complaint plausibly alleges both objective (substantial risk) and subjective (deliberate indifference) prongs; survives 12(b)(6) |
| Whether the district court applied proper pleading standard and considered DRM’s factual allegations | DRM: district court conflated separate cases and failed to apply Twombly/Iqbal to DRM’s factual allegations | DOC: defended dismissal | Held: District court confused cases and did not engage DRM’s facts; Ninth Circuit applied de novo review and found complaint adequate |
| Whether reassignment on remand is required | DRM: reassignment needed to preserve appearance of justice because district judge refused to correct an obvious error | DOC: no personal bias; remand to same judge acceptable | Held: Reassignment warranted to preserve appearance of justice given the court’s adamant erroneous ruling |
| Appropriate legal standard for systemic Eighth Amendment claims | DRM: two-prong Farmer framework for systemwide claims (objective risk + deliberate indifference) governs | DOC: attempted to rely on municipal liability standards or other inapplicable standards | Held: Farmer and Plata control; two-prong test applies to systemic supervisory liability claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (Eighth Amendment requires minimum constitutional mental-health care for prisoners)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference test: objective substantial risk and subjective knowledge)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard to complaints)
- Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (application of systemwide Eighth Amendment framework)
- Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540 (mental health care held to same Eighth Amendment standard as physical health care)
- Sheppard v. David Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045 (Twombly/Iqbal pleading guidance)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (nonconclusory factual content and reasonable inferences for pleading)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (pleading standards at motion to dismiss stage)
- Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062 (notice from litigation can support subjective knowledge of risks)