Gregory Shehee v. Pamela Ahlin
678 F. App'x 601
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee, a pre-commitment civil detainee and later civilly committed Sexually Violent Predator, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging multiple constitutional violations related to his detention and medical care.
- District court screened and dismissed claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Shehee appealed pro se.
- Core factual dispute involves treatment of a fractured wrist: Shehee alleges defendants knew of the fracture but provided only Tylenol/Motrin and delayed proper treatment for over a year.
- Shehee also alleged post-surgical care deficiencies and other claims including interference with religious exercise and denial of access to courts.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and evaluated whether pleadings alleged sufficient facts to state constitutional claims or showed personal participation by defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment free exercise | Shehee: defendants’ actions substantially burdened his religious practice | Defendants: no substantial burden alleged | Dismissed — Shehee failed to plead facts showing a substantial burden (affirmed) |
| Denial of access to courts | Shehee: defendants’ actions deprived him of meaningful access | Defendants: no actual injury shown | Dismissed — no actual injury pleaded (affirmed) |
| Personal involvement in inadequate medical care (Ahlin, King, Sanduh, Waggoner) | Shehee: these staff were responsible for inadequate care | Defendants: lacked personal participation in any constitutional violation | Dismissed — pleadings did not show personal participation (affirmed) |
| Inadequate medical care before surgery (Drs. Tur and Nguyen) | Shehee: doctors knew of wrist fracture and failed to treat for >1 year | Defendants: treatment decisions did not violate constitutional standards | Not dismissed — pleadings sufficiently alleged a claim under applicable standards; reversed and remanded for answer/proceedings |
| Inadequate medical care after surgery (Dr. Nguyen) | Shehee: post-op decisions amounted to unconstitutional care | Defendants: post-op decisions within professional judgment | Dismissed — allegations did not show a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment (affirmed) |
| Leave to amend (Fourth Amended Complaint) | Shehee: should be allowed further amendment | Defendants: further amendment would be futile | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and pleading sufficiency under § 1915A)
- Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (First Amendment free exercise standards)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (requirements for an access-to-courts claim)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference standard for medical claims)
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (protections for pre-commitment civil detainees)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (standard for conditions of confinement for civilly committed individuals)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend may be denied as futile)
- Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court discretion particularly broad after prior leave to amend)