Francis Pullano v. Mary Brammer
684 F. App'x 643
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Francis J. Pullano, a former Nevada state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
- Defendants included NaphCare, Inc. (a medical provider) and individual prison medical staff: Frank, Nolasco, Venturina, and Goodman.
- Claims involved: confiscation of a cane, transfer from medical housing, improper medication dispensing and blood-pressure reading, and denial of a CPAP machine for sleep apnea.
- The district court dismissed Pullano’s Monell-based claim against NaphCare and granted summary judgment for the individual defendants on most claims, finding no actionable harm.
- The district court denied Pullano’s post-deadline motion to amend and considered defendants’ amended expert report.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded—specifically finding a triable issue as to denial of the CPAP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NaphCare is liable under Monell for an official policy/practice causing constitutional deprivation | NaphCare’s policies/customs caused his medical indifference | No facts showing an official policy, practice, or custom caused constitutional harm | Affirmed dismissal—no Monell liability shown |
| Whether confiscation of cane, transfer from medical housing, medication dispensing, and BP reading violated Eighth Amendment | Actions caused unconstitutional deliberate indifference and harm | Any alleged violations did not produce actionable harm | Summary judgment affirmed—no genuine dispute of actionable harm |
| Whether denial of CPAP constituted deliberate indifference | Denial caused pain/suffering from untreated sleep apnea sufficient for Eighth Amendment | Medical expert: denial caused no serious complications or new diagnosis | Reversed/vacated and remanded—genuine dispute exists regarding pain and suffering |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend and by considering amended expert report | Amendment should be allowed; expert report untimely | Amendment untimely (undue delay); consideration of amended report appropriate | Affirmed—denial of leave to amend not an abuse; consideration of amended expert report not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard on cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013) (Monell claim elements)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference requires harm caused by indifference)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference need not show grievous harm; pain and suffering can suffice)
- Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (undue delay as basis to deny leave to amend)
- Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for district court evidentiary rulings)