Weaver v. Norton, 2:16-cv-02311

Background

Plaintiff Richard Weaver, an Oregon inmate, suffered bilateral ulnar neuropathy and sought surgical treatment and post‑operative care while incarcerated at Two Rivers Correctional Institution (TRCI).
Dr. Robert Hansen performed ulnar nerve transposition on Weaver’s right elbow on January 6, 2016; post‑op care at TRCI included slings, splints, braces, pain meds, and intermittent follow‑up through mid‑2016.
Weaver repeatedly complained of ongoing left‑elbow symptoms and requested surgery beginning in 2015; the TLC Committee and ODOC providers evaluated him multiple times but left‑elbow surgery was not performed until November 21, 2017.
Weaver sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for inadequate post‑op care of the right elbow and unreasonable delay in treating the left elbow; defendants included the TLC Committee, individual committee members, and ODOC physician Dr. Bennette Norton.
On summary judgment, the court held there was no genuine dispute on deliberate indifference for treatment of the right elbow (summary judgment granted for defendants on that claim), but found a genuine dispute for delay in treating the left elbow as to individual defendants in their personal capacities (summary judgment denied as to that claim).
The court also dismissed official‑capacity § 1983 claims (sovereign immunity) and respondeat superior theories; the state negligence claim (right elbow) was dismissed for failure to meet OTCA requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post‑operative care for right elbow amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Weaver: sling was inadequate, no PT with therapist, and pain meds ineffective/denied, causing harm	Defendants: medical records show prompt, adequate responses, replacements, monitoring, and appropriate prescribing decisions	Court: No deliberate indifference for right elbow; summary judgment for defendants granted
Whether delay in treating left elbow (≈2 years) amounted to Eighth Amendment violation	Weaver: repeated complaints and objective findings showed progressive, serious need; delay caused substantial harm	Defendants: treatment decisions and triage were medically reasonable; no unconstitutional delay	Court: Genuine dispute exists as to individual defendants’ deliberate indifference regarding delay; summary judgment denied as to individual‑capacity claims
Whether individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Weaver: constitutional right was violated; qualified immunity not applicable	Defendants: actions were reasonable and law not clearly established	Court: First prong satisfied (genuine dispute of violation); second prong (clearly established law) also satisfied given Ninth Circuit precedent—qualified immunity not resolved for left‑elbow delay at summary judgment
Whether official‑capacity and supervisory/respondeat superior liability or OTCA notice bar allow claims	Weaver: seeks relief against officials and committee; state tort claim asserted	Defendants: official‑capacity suits barred by Eleventh Amendment/Will; no respondeat superior liability under §1983; OTCA notice deficient	Court: Official‑capacity and supervisory/respondeat superior §1983 claims dismissed; state negligence claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting principles)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires actual subjective awareness of substantial risk)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (medical malpractice is insufficient to show Eighth Amendment violation)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (delay in medical care can violate Eighth Amendment)
Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198 (delays in care may constitute constitutional violations)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official‑capacity §1983 suits against state officials are treated as suits against the state)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (no respondeat superior liability under §1983)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (individualized liability under §1983 requires personal involvement)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two‑prong framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide prongs of qualified immunity in either order)