Paul Shields v. Scott Jones
15-16372
| 9th Cir. | Oct 3, 2017Background
- Paul Andrew Shields, a California pretrial detainee, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Hepatitis C) while detained.
- Defendants included individual officers (Padilla, Jones, Cannon, Maness) and official-capacity claims against Padilla and Jones (municipal liability theory).
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed certain defendants; denied Shields leave to amend and appointment of counsel.
- Shields appealed pro se; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and for abuse of discretion on procedural rulings.
- The panel affirmed, concluding Shields failed to show deliberate indifference or a municipal policy/custom causing a constitutional violation, and that amendment/appointment of counsel were properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference by Padilla (individual) | Padilla failed to adequately treat Shields' Hepatitis C | Treatment decisions were not constitutionally inadequate; at most disagreement/medical judgment | Summary judgment for Padilla affirmed; no genuine dispute of deliberate indifference |
| Municipal/official-capacity liability (Padilla & Jones) | Policy/custom caused constitutional violation | No policy or custom caused the alleged violation | Summary judgment for official-capacity defendants affirmed (Monell failure) |
| Claims against Cannon & Maness | They were deliberately indifferent to medical needs | Insufficient factual/allegational basis to show awareness and disregard of risk | Claims dismissed; plaintiff did not plead facts establishing deliberate indifference |
| Leave to amend & appointment of counsel | Proposed amendment would cure defects; counsel necessary due to complexity | Proposed amendments would not cure deficiencies; no exceptional circumstances for counsel | Denials affirmed; amendment would not fix pleading defects and no exceptional circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk; medical disagreement not deliberate indifference)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainee conditions evaluated for punishment)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements of Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim for pretrial detainees)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of Monell municipal liability)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for dismissal and leave to amend)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for appointing counsel; exceptional circumstances required)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief need not be considered)