Wilhelm v. Rotman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10647
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wilhelm, a pro se §1983 plaintiff, alleges Deliberate Indifference to a serious medical need due to delayed hernia treatment by Rotman and Schuster.
- The district court dismissed the complaint at screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915A for failure to state a claim.
- Consent issue: plaintiff completed a form consenting to jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, with potential variance about which magistrate.
- The case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Cohn; dismissal occurred at screening, with plaintiff appealing.
- The court distinguishes Rotman’s actions (tocusing on delay in implementing prescribed treatment) from Schuster’s allegedly negligent misdiagnosis.
- On remand, the district court is to serve Rotman and proceed accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilhelm validly consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction | Consent to jurisdiction of a magistrate judge | Consent limited to specific magistrate judge | Consent to magistrate jurisdiction found; implied consent also supported |
| Whether Rotman’s conduct shows deliberate indifference | Rotman caused delay and cancellation of referrals | Delay may be due to medical judgment; not deliberate indifference | Rotman’s conduct plausibly shows deliberate indifference; proceed against Rotman |
| Whether Schuster’s misdiagnosis constitutes deliberate indifference | Schuster misdiagnosed and failed to treat hernia | Disagreement or negligence not deliberate indifference | Missed diagnosis alone not sufficient; Schuster dismissed |
| Remand and service issue | Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part; district court to order service on Rotman |
Key Cases Cited
- Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (U.S. 2003) (consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction can be inferred from conduct when proper notice was given)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard; two-pronged test)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (negligence not enough; delayed treatment can be indifference when causally linked to harm)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (medical malpractice does not equal Eighth Amendment violation; standard clarified)
- Anderson v. WoodCreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional consent considerations for magistrate judges; Roell supersedes prior rule)