James Bennett v. Jaspal Dhaliwal
15-56448
| 9th Cir. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- While incarcerated at FMC Lompoc, James Bennett contracted tuberculosis and Pott’s disease and received treatment from Bureau of Prisons medical staff.
- Bennett filed a Bivens suit against five Lompoc medical professionals alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; after exhausting administrative remedies, he and his wife separately filed an FTCA suit against the United States.
- Before trial, the Bennetts repeatedly informed the court and the United States they would not proceed with the FTCA claim and moved to voluntarily dismiss it without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
- The district court denied the voluntary dismissal and later dismissed the FTCA action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the individual medical defendants in the Bivens action; Bennett appealed that judgment as well as the FTCA dismissal ruling.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the FTCA dismissal for abuse of discretion and reviewed the Bivens summary judgment de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss the FTCA suit without prejudice | Bennett sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice and had repeatedly informed the court and the United States he would not proceed | The United States opposed dismissal (arguing prejudice or reliance) and the court treated non-prosecution as grounds to dismiss with prejudice | Vacated dismissal with prejudice; remanded with instructions to dismiss the FTCA action without prejudice (court abused discretion in denying Rule 41(a)(2)) |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the FTCA action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) | Bennett argued dismissal with prejudice was improper given his expressed intent to voluntarily dismiss and lack of legal prejudice to the United States | The district court treated the case as abandoned and dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute | Reversed: dismissal with prejudice was an abuse; dismissal without prejudice required |
| Whether any of the five medical defendants were deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment | Bennett contended the defendants’ delays and treatment decisions amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs | Defendants argued they provided ongoing evaluation, diagnostics, medication, and referrals; at most negligence, not deliberate indifference | Affirmed: No genuine dispute of material fact that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether alleged delays (e.g., in ordering MRI) rose to deliberate indifference rather than negligence | Bennett emphasized diagnostic delay and treatment choices as constitutionally deficient | Defendants showed continuity of care, responsive adjustments to treatment, tests, and referrals | Delay may show negligence, but not deliberate indifference; reasonable jury could not find Eighth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for abuse of discretion in denying voluntary dismissal)
- Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2001) (district courts should grant voluntary dismissal absent plain legal prejudice to defendant)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to grant Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal can be abuse of discretion)
- Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1994) (loss of potential FTCA defenses does not constitute legal prejudice)
- Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (mere malpractice or gross negligence insufficient to prove Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)