Jonathan Ploof v. Charles Ryan, 689 F. App'x 522

Plaintiff Jonathan Michael Ploof, an Arizona state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs related to a heart condition.
Ploof asserted delays in receiving treatment and medication and alleged defendants failed to implement policies ensuring timely health care.
He also alleged denial of a cardiac diet constituted deliberate indifference.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it.
Ploof moved for a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) to conduct additional discovery and sought to incorporate documents by reference; the district court denied both requests.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and denial of the continuance/incorporation requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether delay in treatment/medication showed deliberate indifference	Delay caused further injury to heart condition and resulted from defendants’ policy failures	No genuine dispute that delay caused further injury or was caused by defendants’ policies	Court: No — Ploof failed to show delay led to further injury or was caused by policies
Whether supervisory liability attaches for alleged deficient policies	Supervisors implemented policies so deficient they caused constitutional violation	Policies were not so deficient and not the moving force of any violation	Court: No — plaintiff did not establish supervisory liability under Hansen standard
Whether denial of cardiac diet amounted to Eighth Amendment violation	Diet was inadequate for heart condition and resulted from defendants’ practices	Diet was adequate to maintain health and not the product of defendants’ policy/practice	Court: No — Ploof failed to raise a genuine dispute that diet was inadequate or policy-driven
Whether district court abused discretion in denying Rule 56(d) continuance and refusing to consider incorporation-by-reference	Needed discovery and incorporation to oppose summary judgment; court should have granted continuance	Ploof did not submit affidavit/declaration identifying facts discovery would reveal; incorporation improper	Court: No — Ploof failed to satisfy Rule 56(d) requirements; incorporation argument rejected

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review and deliberate indifference framework)
Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (appellate affirmance may be based on any record-supported ground)
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff alleging delay must show delay led to further injury)
Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisory liability requires policy so deficient it is the moving force of violation)
Mendiola–Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2016) (Eighth Amendment requires food adequate to maintain health)
Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 56(d) continuance requires identification of specific facts further discovery would reveal)