Shawn Francis v. Steven Hammond
673 F. App'x 661
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Shawn Francis, a Washington state prisoner, sued prison officials and medical staff alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, state negligence, and violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for denial of reasonable accommodations.
- Francis injured his shoulder and sought orthopedic consultation and MRI after conservative treatment allegedly failed; medical defendants declined those referrals.
- Francis claimed Secretary Warner knew of and disregarded his medical needs; Warner had not participated in medical decisions before receiving plaintiffs’ counsel’s September 2012 letter.
- Francis injured himself lifting a box; he sued Wells and Hayes for allegedly causing or permitting the incident contrary to a lifting restriction.
- Francis sought to store legal materials confidentially (in a box/folders) in his cell; he argued the Department of Corrections denied a reasonable accommodation and access to legal materials.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference by Secretary Warner | Warner knew of and disregarded Francis's serious shoulder injury | Warner did not participate in medical decisions and lacked medical expertise or prior knowledge before counsel's letter | Affirmed for Warner — no evidence of knowledge or participation; nonmedical supervisory review insufficient |
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference by Drs. Hammond, Kenney, Smith | Doctors rejected referrals for ortho consult/MRI after conservative care failed, showing conscious disregard | Treatment choice reflected medical judgment; differences of opinion are insufficient for deliberate indifference | Affirmed — disputed care is a medical difference of opinion, not deliberate indifference |
| Eighth Amendment & state negligence — Wells and Hayes regarding lifting incident | They caused/failed to prevent Francis lifting the full box contrary to restriction | They did not order lifting and the event was not foreseeable; Francis had time/options | Affirmed — no intentional interference or foreseeability; summary judgment proper |
| ADA & Rehabilitation Act — denial of reasonable accommodation for confidential storage | Denial of permission to store legal box/folders in cell denied reasonable accommodation and access | Allowing floor storage/folders would conflict with penological interests; Francis never requested folders | Affirmed — Francis failed to show a requested, reasonable accommodation consistent with penological interests; no denial of access shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for prison medical deliberate indifference)
- Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (awareness of risk is necessary for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (difference of medical opinion insufficient for deliberate indifference)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (deliberate indifference can be shown by intentional interference with medical treatment)
- Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff bears burden to show existence of a reasonable accommodation)
- Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (reasonable accommodation requirement under ADA)
- Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment review standard in civil rights cases)