Webb v. Miller-Saltarello

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-2094
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REUBEN WEBB, No. 24-2094 D.C. No. 6:23-cv-01636-MC Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

HEIDI MILLER-SALTARELLO; TIA BULLOCK; CARRIE COFFEY; Doctor WARREN G. ROBERTS, MD; JOE BUGHER; ADAM KIDWELL; JOHN/JANE DOES; KAREN WRIGHT; DANNA FLEENER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Reuben Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to

his serious medical needs and related state law claims. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm in part, reverse

in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendants

Bullock, Coffey, Roberts, Bugher, Wright, and Fleener because Webb failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that they violated his constitutional rights. See

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 798 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining

that a supervisory official is liable under § 1983 if “there exists either (1) his or her

personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal

connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional

violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendant

Miller-Saltarello and the Therapeutic Level of Care Committee Does regarding

physical therapy and a brace after his knee surgery because Webb failed to allege

facts sufficient to show that these defendants’ acts harmed him. See Wilhelm v.

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, to establish

deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to

2 24-2094 respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the

indifference” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to

amend Webb’s claims against defendants Bullock, Coffey, Roberts, Bugher,

Wright, and Fleener, and his claims regarding physical therapy and a knee brace

against Miller-Saltarello and the Therapeutic Level of Care Committee Does,

because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans,

Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile);

see also Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., 962 F.3d 405, 420 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining

that the court’s discretion is particularly broad when a plaintiff has previously been

granted leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add requisite particularity to

claims).

The district court dismissed Webb’s claim against Miller-Saltarello

regarding the administration of pain medication after his knee surgery because

Webb failed to allege facts sufficient to show deliberate indifference. However,

Webb alleged that Miller-Saltarello contravened the surgeon’s pain medication

order, resulting in Webb being sent to the emergency department for shortness of

breath attributable to inadequate post-operative pain management. Liberally

construed, these allegations “are sufficient to warrant ordering [defendant Miller-

3 24-2094 Saltarello] to file an answer.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1116; Wakefield v. Thompson,

177 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]llegations that a prison official has

ignored the instructions of a prisoner’s treating physician are sufficient to state a

claim for deliberate indifference.”).

The district court dismissed Webb’s claim against Miller-Saltarello and the

outside scheduler Does regarding the delay in scheduling his MRI because Webb

failed to allege facts sufficient to show deliberate indifference. However, Webb

alleged that Miller-Saltarello purposefully erred in entering the MRI order and that

these defendants knew the scheduling system was inadequate and failed to follow

up properly to schedule the ordered imaging, resulting in a significant delay in

diagnosis and subsequent surgery. Liberally construed, these allegations “are

sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at

1116; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference

standard).

While a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), over remaining state law claims, the district court did not

indicate that it was exercising that discretion here. We vacate the dismissal of

Webb’s Oregon state law claims and remand to give the court an opportunity to

exercise its discretion. See Pell v. Nunez, 99 F.4th 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2024)

(remanding to permit the district court to determine whether to exercise its

4 24-2094 discretion over state law claims).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and

REMANDED.

5 24-2094