Opinion
Argued and Submitted April 12, 2001.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Prisoner brought action against prison staff, alleging they exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, William B. Shubb, J., denied staff's motion for summary judgment, and they appealed. The Court of Appeals held that prison staff enjoyed qualified immunity on prisoner's claim.
Reversed and remanded with instructions. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, D. NELSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Appellants, members of the High Desert State Prison staff ("the staff"), appeal the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The staff also appeals the denial of their parallel request to limit discovery.
Appellee Randy Lee Grady ("Grady") asserts that the staff exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We reverse and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for the staff.
The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment without making a finding that Grady had raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding qualified immunity. The district court relied on Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.1992). However, the prisoner in Hamilton raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Accordingly, Hamilton did not establish a blanket prohibition against granting a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity merely because a plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment violation. The district court was still required to view the facts in the light most favorable to Grady, and determine whether the actions of the staff could have constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See id.; see also Jeffers v. Gomez, 240 F.3d 845, 852-53 (9th Cir.2001).
Pursuant to our de novo review, we view Grady's case from the same position as the district court. See Lake Mohave Boat Owner's Ass'n v. Nat'l Park Serv., 138 F.3d 759, 762 (9th Cir.1998). The record reflects that the medical staff never ignored Grady's complaints; rather, they actively treated him. The staff examined Grady numerous times, performed a CAT scan of his brain and pelvis, excised a gluteal mass, and scheduled exploratory surgery to determine the cause of his pain. Grady failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding deliberate indifference, because his complaints of pain were evaluated and addressed. Concerning the staff who allegedly "forced" Grady to work at his prison job, despite his back injury, he has offered no evidence demonstrating that those defendants deliberately denied or delayed his access to his medical care. See Jeffers, 240 F.3d at 854, 855-56.
Therefore, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense. Because we have ruled that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we do not address the discovery issue.
Page 966.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to enter summary judgment on behalf of defendants.