John Crowley v. Bruce Bannister
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22087
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- John Crowley, a Nevada state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference after a change in his lithium dosing and subsequent hospitalization for lithium toxicity.
- Crowley alleged intake nurses altered his regimen from three daily administrations to two (same total daily dose), and that medical staff delayed or refused treatment when he showed signs of toxicity.
- The Attorney General accepted service for all named defendants except Dr. Daniel Sussman; Crowley did not effect service on Sussman within 120 days.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Dr. Bannister, Warden Neven, and nurses Grisham, Diliddo, and Balao-Cledera, concluding no genuine issue of deliberate indifference; clerk entered judgment as to Sussman without Rule 4(m) notice.
- Crowley appealed; Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Bannister and the warden/nurses (appeal as to those defendants waived), vacated judgment as to Sussman for Rule 4(m) defects, and vacated denial of leave to amend to permit discovery and naming of proper defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Crowley suggested appeal should be dismissed/remanded as nonfinal because an unserved defendant remained | Defendants treated judgment as final; clerk entered judgment disposing of all defendants | Court had jurisdiction: judgment final as to served defendants and clerk entered judgment disposing of the action |
| Dismissal for failure to serve (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)) | Crowley failed to serve Sussman but argued lack of notice / opportunity to show good cause | Defendants argued dismissal appropriate because Sussman was never served | Vacated clerk’s judgment as to Sussman; district court abused discretion by not giving Rule 4(m) notice and opportunity to show good cause or excusable neglect; remand for compliance |
| Merits: deliberate indifference / supervisory liability (Dr. Bannister) | Bannister implemented a two ‘‘pill call’’ policy that caused harm; supervisor liable if policy caused injury | Bannister argued dosage change was by doctor, total daily dose unchanged, and lithium toxicity attributable to other causes (e.g., dehydration) | Affirmed summary judgment for Bannister: Crowley produced no evidence that the two-pill-call policy (with same total dose) proximately caused his toxicity |
| Denial of leave to amend to identify proper defendants / allow discovery | Crowley sought leave to amend to name correct individuals and to obtain discovery to show delays caused/exacerbated toxicity | Defendants relied on medical records and argued care provided did not show deliberate indifference | Vacated denial of leave to amend; abused discretion to refuse amendment/discovery where identities were unclear and pro se status warranted opportunity to cure defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Patchick v. Kensington Publ’g Corp., 743 F.2d 675 (9th Cir.) (finality where only unserved defendants remain)
- Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986) (service required for personal jurisdiction)
- Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2002) (notice required before sua sponte dismissal under Rule 4(m))
- Brengettcy v. Horton, 423 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2005) (Rule 4(m) requires notice and opportunity to show good cause)
- Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 4(m) good-cause mandatory extension; excusable-neglect discretionary extension)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2012) (standards for deliberate indifference and supervisory liability)
- Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisory liability principles under § 1983)
- Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980) (opportunity through discovery to identify unknown defendants)