Earl Bond, Jr. v. Keith Miller

684 F. App'x 622
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 21, 2017
Docket15-55321
StatusUnpublished

This text of 684 F. App'x 622 (Earl Bond, Jr. v. Keith Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Earl Bond, Jr. v. Keith Miller, 684 F. App'x 622 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants Keith Miller and Joseph Florin appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in Bond’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Conner v. Heiman, 672 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012). We review de novo, and our review, is limited to issues of law. Lee v. Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Miller and Florin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bond, Bond raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Miller and Florin violated Bond’s constitutional right to adequate medical care, and that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (setting forth two-part test for qualified immunity claims); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 906 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the right to be free from officers intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care was clearly established); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (deliberate indifference may be established if a defendant “purposefully ignore[s] or fail[s] to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pearson v. Callahan
555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court, 2009)
John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.
974 F.2d 1050 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Conner v. Heiman
672 F.3d 1126 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Clement v. Gomez
298 F.3d 898 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
684 F. App'x 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earl-bond-jr-v-keith-miller-ca9-2017.