David Peasley v. M. Spearman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2025
• Docket: 23-15471
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID SCOTT PEASLEY, No. 23-15471

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-01769-JSW

v. MEMORANDUM* M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Warden; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 5, 2025 San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

David Peasley appeals from the district court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of Officers Gibson, Orozco, and Maria Lopez.** Peasley alleges

that the officers violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment on two occasions

by denying him access to necessary medical care for his Type 1 diabetes. Peasley

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The first names of Officers Gibson and Orozco are not apparent from the record. also appeals the denial of his request for appointment of counsel. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of Officers Gibson and Orozco, but reverse summary judgment in

favor of Officer Lopez; reverse the denial of request for appointment of counsel; and

remand for further proceedings.

1. Deliberate indifference claim.

We review summary judgment orders de novo and must view “the evidence

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” in determining whether there is

a genuine dispute of material fact. Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th

Cir. 1989).

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the

Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A prison official is deliberately

indifferent when he knows that a prisoner faces “a substantial risk of serious harm

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it.” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Neither negligence nor gross negligence

constitutes deliberate indifference. Id. at 835-36 & n.4. That said, “[t]he

requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in cases involving a prisoner’s

medical needs than in other cases involving harm to incarcerated individuals because

the State’s responsibility to provide inmates with medical care ordinarily does not

2 conflict with competing administrative concerns.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled

on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997). Prison officials can be found “deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s

serious medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical

treatment.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir.2002) (internal citation

and quotation marks omitted).

A. Officers Gibson and Orozco.

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officers Gibson

and Orozco. Peasley claims that he was worried that his blood sugar level was too

high and thus asked Officers Gibson and Orozco to release him from his cell so that

he could see Medical for a blood glucose test “as a precaution.”

Instead of permitting Peasley to see Medical, though, Officer Gibson called

the “pill window”—a place within the prison that provides scheduled blood tests—

to ask a “pill nurse” if they would provide Peasley a blood glucose test. The pill

nurse informed Officer Gibson that the pill window could not provide a blood

glucose test because Peasley had no “order” for such a test. Officer Gibson informed

Peasley that the pill nurse said they were unable to provide a blood test, and,

according to Peasley, it then “became funny to [Officer] Orozco to tell [Peasley] the

[nurse] wouldn’t help as he ignored [Peasley’s] question all together.” But given

3 that Peasley had earlier described his request for a blood test as merely

precautionary, Officers Gibson and Orozco’s denial of his request does not rise to

deliberate indifference.

B. Officer Lopez.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Peasley, we reverse and

remand the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Lopez. Peasley

claims he informed Officer Lopez that he was experiencing diabetic symptoms, that

his condition was “urgent,” and that he needed a pass to see Medical. Officer Lopez

made a phone call and then returned to tell Peasley he did not have an appointment.

Officer Lopez then gave Peasley a medical intake form and left him alone in his cell.

Peasley alleges that although Officer Lopez knew he was diabetic and was told that

he needed “urgent” medical care, Officer Lopez told the medical staff “only” that

Peasley “felt bad.” Given Peasley allegedly told Officer Lopez that his diabetic

medical needs were “urgent,” a jury could conclude that Officer Lopez knew Peasley

faced “a substantial risk of serious harm” but “disregard[ed] that risk by failing to

take reasonable steps to abate it.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.

2. Request for appointment of counsel.

We review an order denying a plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel

for abuse of discretion. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The

decision to appoint counsel “is within the sound discretion of the trial court and is

4 granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). A

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of (1) “the likelihood of

success on the merits,” and (2) “the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718

F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Importantly, neither factor alone is dispositive and

“both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

Here, the district court denied Peasley’s motion for appointment of counsel

“because there is no right to counsel in a civil proceeding, and [Peasley] has been

able to adequately present his claims to the Court.” The district court thus addressed

the second factor (Peasley’s ability to articulate his claims pro se) but not the first

factor (Peasley’s likelihood of success on the merits). Because the district court

“failed to articulate its reasons” for denying Peasley’s request for appointment of

counsel, it is difficult to “determine on appellate review whether [the district court’s]

denial constituted an abuse of discretion.” See Solis v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 514

F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008). For this reason, we reverse and remand the district

court’s denial of Peasley’s request for counsel. See id. “If the district court should,

after considering all the relevant factors, including those mentioned above, decide

once again to deny [Peasley’s] motion for appointment of counsel, it must provide

5 an adequate explanation of its reasons such that its decision may be reviewed by us

on appeal.” Id.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.