Jones v. Johnson

Decision Date31 January 1986
Docket NumberNo. 83-3637,83-3637
Citation781 F.2d 769
PartiesClarence Eugene JONES aka Asmar Habeeb-Ullah Saleem, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. JOHNSON, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Asmar Habeeb-Ullah Saleem, Clarence Eugene Jones, Salem, Or., Robert Favole, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Rudolph Westerfand, J. Michael Doyle, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Before FLETCHER and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and AGUILAR, * District Judge.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Clarence Eugene Jones appeals the dismissal of his section 1983 civil rights action against Multnomah County, Multnomah County jail, jail officials and employees, and other county officials, for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

Clarence Eugene Jones is incarcerated at the Oregon State Prison, but the alleged constitutional violations occurred while he was detained and awaiting trial at the Rocky Butte County Jail in Multnomah County. Jones's complaint may be construed as alleging the following facts. Before his imprisonment, Jones had been scheduled for surgery for a hernia. Because he was suffering extreme discomfort and pain while in jail, Jones consulted on several occasions with Dr. Alan Melnick, the jail physician. Dr. Melnick told him the county had a "tight" budget, and that until Jones suffered a strangulated hernia, he would not receive treatment. Dr. Melnick told Jones that he would ask his supervisor (Johnson) if surgery could be performed, but also told Jones that because this surgery was considered "elective," it was unlikely that he would receive treatment. An examination by a second doctor, Dr. Robert Childs, ordered by the state court confirmed that Jones had a hernia. Jones also made a written request for assistance from Kathy Page and Thomas Slyter (employees at the jail) in obtaining treatment, but neither responded.

Jones filed a section 1983 action seeking damages and an injunction against Dr. Melnick, Dr. Johnson (Medical Director of the Correction Division), Page and Slyter. He later filed an amended complaint naming other supervisory personnel of the jail, county officials, and the county itself, as defendants.

Three months after filing his complaint, Jones moved for default judgment against all of the defendants because they failed to answer the complaint. The county officials who had been added by the amended complaint then moved to dismiss the action against them for failure to state a claim because Jones had alleged only respondeat superior liability which is barred by Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The district court granted their motion, and also dismissed the action as to the remaining defendants sua sponte because Jones's complaint did not allege "deliberate indifference" to his medical needs. The district court concluded that at most his allegations amounted to a disagreement between a patient and a physician over the severity of Jones's condition and the proper means of treatment. The district court gave Jones thirty days to file an amended complaint, but Jones failed to amend and the entire action was dismissed. Jones timely appeals the dismissal as to all defendants.

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Compton v. Ide, 732 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir.1984). We construe the plaintiff's pro se complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), and will not uphold a dismissal for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can show no set of facts that supports his claim. De la Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965, 99 S.Ct. 2416, 60 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1979).

Because Jones was a pretrial detainee and not a convicted prisoner at the time of the claimed wrongful conduct, his Sec. 1983 action for inadequate medical treatment arises from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and not from the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872 n. 16, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Although Jones's claim arises under the due process clause, the eighth amendment guarantees provide a minimum standard of care for determining Jones's rights as a pretrial detainee, including his right to medical care. City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 2983, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983); see L.H. v. Jamieson, 643 F.2d 1351, 1356 n. 3 (9th Cir.1981). Jail personnel violate a prisoner's eighth amendment rights if they are deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). See also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir.1982); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.1980). This indifference must be substantial to violate the constitution, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292; see Franklin v. Oregon State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981), and state prison authorities have wide discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical treatment. Riley v. Rhay, 407 F.2d 496, 497 (9th Cir.1969).

Jones's complaint alleges facts constituting deliberate indifference. He notified Dr. Melnick, Slyter and Page of his pain and discomfort. Slyter and Page did not respond. Dr. Melnick told him that the county would not provide the necessary treatment because it had a tight budget and that until Jones suffered a "lacerated hernia," he could not obtain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
306 cases
  • Hendon v. Ramsey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 28, 2007
    ...(9th Cir.1980) (delay of six days in treating hepatitis was sufficient to state a deliberate, indifference claim); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 770-71 (9th Cir.1986) (allegation that jail medical staff would not treat plaintiffs painful hernia until it became strangulated stated a claim ......
  • Kosilek v. Spencer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • September 4, 2012
    ...therefore frowned upon throughout the prison health system” might contribute to a showing of deliberate indifference); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986) (“We find no other explanation in the record than budget concerns for denying Jones's surgery. Budgetary constraints, how......
  • Rushing v. Wayne County
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1990
    ...3, 1987), cert. den. 485 U.S. 991, 108 S.Ct. 1298, 99 L.Ed.2d 508 (1988); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (CA 4, 1984); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769 (CA 9, 1986); Garcia v. Salt Lake Co., 768 F.2d 303 (CA 10, 1985); Hamm v. DeKalb Co., 774 F.2d 1567 (CA 11, 1985), cert. den. 475 U.S. 1096......
  • Carnell v. Grimm
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • December 27, 1994
    ...duty not to remain deliberately indifferent to the need for medical treatment of an individual in their custody. See Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986); Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). While claims of pretrial detainees "arise unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Free-World Law Behind Bars.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...does not recognize a cost defense to medical-care claims, see Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1991); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986), pricing impacts treatment protocols such as sobriety requirements, and prisoners who are denied medication based on an ......
  • RETHINKING THE REASONABLE RESPONSE: SAFEGUARDING THE PROMISE OF KINGSLEY FOR CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 119 No. 4, February 2021
    • February 1, 2021
    ...... do not justify cruel and unusual punishment." Id. at 1092 (Christen, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (quoting 781 F.2d 769, 771-72 (9th Cir. 1986)). She also cited Snow v. McDaniel as evidence of the fact that this proposition was equally applicable in suits for damages a......
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 63, April 2015
    • April 1, 2015
    ...to consider the resources available to a prison official who lacks authority over budgeting decisions, overruling Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, and Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978; (2) evidence warranted a jury instruction on the lack of resources available to the staff dentist; (3) eviden......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT