Michael Chess v. J. Dovey, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10753

Background

Michael Chess, a pro se prisoner, sued eight HDSP medical staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for (1) discontinuing his methadone and (2) prescribing drugs harmful to his liver; jury returned verdict for defendants.
HDSP had a policy barring narcotics for general-population inmates but allowing narcotics in the Correctional Treatment Center (CTC); Chess arrived and was treated in the CTC then moved to general population.
Chess testified he suffered pain after methadone was stopped and argued the narcotics policy caused the discontinuation; defendants mostly testified methadone was not medically indicated and/or dangerous for Chess.
The magistrate judge gave a Ninth Circuit model instruction directing juror deference to prison officials’ policies and practices (language drawn from Norwood and model instruction §9.25); Chess did not formally object at trial.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit considered (1) the proper standard of review for an unpreserved objection by a pro se litigant and (2) whether the deference instruction is appropriate in Eighth Amendment medical-care cases; the court found the instruction erroneous but harmless and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to object at trial forfeited Chess’s challenge to the jury instruction	Chess lacked legal sophistication and relied on judge’s engagement; objection would have been pointless	Defendants: Chess waived review by not objecting; review should be plain-error only	Court: De novo review allowed because judge and parties fully debated the issue and objection would have been a "pointless formality" for a pro se litigant
Whether model deference instruction (give deference to prison officials’ policies) is proper in Eighth Amendment medical-care cases	Instruction was improper because security-based deference typically applies to force/conditions, not ordinary medical decisions	Defendants: Norwood and model instruction support giving deference broadly in prisoner Eighth Amendment claims	Court: Deference instruction is inappropriate in most medical-care cases; may be given only when evidence plausibly links the challenged medical decision to a bona fide security-based policy
Whether the magistrate judge erred by giving the deference instruction here	Chess argued the narcotics policy caused withdrawal of methadone and thus the deference instruction misstated law	Defendants argued the narcotics policy was irrelevant because Chess did not need methadone and defendants gave narcotics when medically indicated	Court: It was error to give the instruction because the record lacked a plausible connection between the narcotics (security) policy and the challenged treatment decision
Whether the instructional error warrants reversal (prejudice/harmless error)	Chess argued error likely affected jury outcome	Defendants argued evidence overwhelmingly showed no constitutional violation regardless of instruction	Court: Error was harmless — jury would likely have reached same verdict; affirm judgment

Key Cases Cited

Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (authorized deference instruction in conditions-of-confinement cases and influenced Ninth Circuit model instruction)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (use-of-force context recognizing need for deference to prison officials when balancing security interests)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (discussed relationship between medical care claims and conditions-of-confinement standards)
Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2009) (civil jury instruction law; misstatement of law reviewed de novo)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (deliberate indifference standard in medical care cases)
Payne v. United States, 944 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1991) ("pointless formality" exception to forfeiture of objections)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (conditions-of-confinement analysis informing deference language)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard and its relation to deliberate indifference)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials’ duties to ensure humane conditions and safety)