Farley v. Capot, 062110 FED9, 09-15695

Docket Nº:09-15695
Party Name:LEONARD FARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR E. CAPOT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:June 21, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LEONARD FARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOCTOR E. CAPOT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15695

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 21, 2010

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 25, 2010 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01760-LJO-WMW

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Leonard Farley, a California prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Farley's deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Capot because Farley failed to allege that Capot knew of or disregarded a serious risk to Farley's health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (setting forth deliberate indifference standard); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (isolated instances of negligent failure to provide medical care do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference). The record shows that despite his initial failure to diagnose the source of Farley's abdominal pain, Capot subsequently responded reasonably to Farley's medical needs.

However, the district court erred in dismissing Farley's deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Tate. At the pleading stage, the allegations in Farley's complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to him. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Farley alleged facts indicating that Tate refused to authorize two urgent requests for surgery on Farley's cancerous tumor without any explanation and that the approximately two-month delay in surgery caused Farley unnecessary pain and further serious harm. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1097-98 (two-month...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP