Shaun Conley v. Nielsen
706 F. App'x 890
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Conley, a former pretrial detainee at Bannock County Jail, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs and retaliation; he proceeded pro se and appealed the district court dismissal.
- The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and closed the case; Conley appealed that final order.
- The court dismissed defendant Valerie Gray for failure to provide a physical service address under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) after giving Conley a 60‑day opportunity to supply an address.
- The district court dismissed deliberate indifference claims against several named jail officials (Neilson, Jones, Bybee, Peterson, Ballard, Mayo, Baird, Koyle) for failure to plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.
- The court dismissed claims against the County Jail’s unnamed “medical care provider” for failure to plead an official policy/custom (Monell theory), and dismissed claims against unspecified “medical staff” because Conley did not identify individuals or conduct.
- The district court dismissed Conley’s retaliation claim against multiple defendants for failure to allege a nexus between protected speech and adverse action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service of process for Valerie Gray under Rule 4(m) | Conley did not provide Gray's address but sought service via the Marshal | Rule 4(m) requires plaintiff to provide sufficient info; noncompliance justifies dismissal | Dismissal of Gray was proper after court gave 60 days and Conley failed to supply address; case may be reopened with good cause and information |
| Deliberate indifference by named jail officials | Officials were deliberately indifferent to Conley’s serious medical needs | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing officials knew of and disregarded substantial risk | Dismissal affirmed: pleadings insufficient under deliberate‑indifference standard (Farmer/Kingsley principles apply to detainees) |
| § 1983 claim against unnamed private "medical care provider" (Monell theory) | Jail’s medical provider is liable under § 1983 | No facts alleged showing an official policy, practice, or custom causing the violation | Dismissal proper: no plausible Monell theory pleaded against the provider |
| Claims against unspecified "all medical staff" | Broad allegation that medical staff were responsible | Plaintiff must identify individual actors and specific conduct | Dismissal proper for failure to identify individuals; leave to amend available if names discovered |
| Retaliation against multiple defendants | Defendants retaliated for Conley’s protected speech | Complaint fails to plead a nexus between speech and adverse acts | Dismissal proper: retaliatory nexus not plausibly alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (establishes deliberate indifference standard)
- Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 (applies deliberate indifference to pretrial detainees)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128 (§ 1983 elements against private entities performing government functions)
- Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (municipal custom must be persistent and widespread)
- O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920 (elements of § 1983 retaliation claim)
- Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (pro se plaintiff relying on U.S. Marshal must provide sufficient service information)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (objective standard for pretrial detainee excessive force/failure‑to‑protect claims)