700 F. App'x 661
9th Cir.2017Background
- Ronnie Edwards, a pretrial detainee at Clark County Detention Center, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging failure to protect and inadequate medical care and other procedural/Discovery claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Edwards alleged defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety due to a puddle on the floor and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
- Edwards moved to amend his complaint, file a surreply, obtain additional discovery (including a Rule 56(d) stay), and modify the scheduling order; the district court denied these motions.
- Edwards appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment and denials of procedural motions for abuse of discretion, and reviewed legal standards de novo where applicable.
- The panel affirmed summary judgment, found amendment and discovery motions would have been futile or unsupported, and held Edwards waived certain issues and failed to preserve others for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect (safety risk from puddle) | Edwards: puddle created an excessive risk to safety | Defendants: no knowledge of, or disregard for, an excessive risk; puddle not constitutionally cognizable risk | Summary judgment for defendants; no genuine dispute of deliberate-indifference to safety |
| Inadequate medical care | Edwards: defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health needs | Defendants: treatment disagreements or negligence do not meet deliberate-indifference standard | Summary judgment for defendants; no genuine dispute defendants knowingly disregarded excessive health risk |
| Motions to amend complaint | Edwards: sought to add claims/parties | Defendants/district court: amendment would be futile; supplemental state claims inappropriate after federal claims dismissed | Denied as within district court discretion; amendment would be futile |
| Discovery / Rule 56(d) / surreply / scheduling relief | Edwards: needed further discovery and replies to defeat summary judgment and to amend schedule | Defendants: Edwards failed to show requested discovery would preclude summary judgment or justify procedural relief | Denials affirmed; Edwards failed to show prejudice, good cause, or that discovery would have precluded summary judgment |
| Reconsideration and appeal timeliness | Edwards: sought reconsideration of summary judgment | Defendants: appeal period not extended; procedural rules require timely appeal after final order | Court lacked jurisdiction to review denial of reconsideration because Edwards did not timely amend or refile appeal |
| Vision impairment claim | Edwards: raised vision impairment issue | Defendants: issue not raised below | Waived on appeal for failure to raise during summary judgment proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard for medical claims)
- LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir.) (slippery/shower floors and Eighth Amendment claims)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. en banc) (elements of Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim)
- Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir.) (pretrial detainee medical claims analyzed under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend; futility standard)
- Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817 (9th Cir.) (declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims)
- Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757 (9th Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for managing litigation and surreplies)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.) (standard for Rule 56(d) discovery to avoid summary judgment)
- Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (broad discretion in discovery; prejudice requirement to overturn denial)
- Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391 (9th Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for local rules compliance)
- Novato Fire Prot. Dist. v. United States, 181 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.) (failure to raise issue at summary judgment waives it on appeal)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (appellate courts do not consider issues not distinctly raised in opening brief)