×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
AZ Prisoner's Denial of Transfer to Release Center by Changing His Sex-Offense Treatment Rating Sati
AZ Prisoner's Denial of Transfer to Release Center by Changing His
Sex-Offense Treatment Rating Satisfies Due Process
Tony Luca, an Arizona prisoner, was denied transfer to a correctional
release center after prison guards changed his sex-offender treatment
rating to one not eligible for transfer to a release center. He filed suit
in federal district court, claiming a due process violation. The district
court dismissed the case, and Luca appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the
applicable regulations required prison guards to consider certain factors
when assessing Luca's treatment rating but did not require any specific
outcome based on those factors. Thus, the due process clauses of the U.S.
Constitution were not violated when the guards changed Luca's sex-offender
treatment rating based on their assessment of those factors in his case.
The district court was therefore affirmed and Luca's appeal dismissed. See:
Luca v. Admin. of Offender Services Bureau, 15 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1994)
(Table).
Sex-Offense Treatment Rating Satisfies Due Process
Tony Luca, an Arizona prisoner, was denied transfer to a correctional
release center after prison guards changed his sex-offender treatment
rating to one not eligible for transfer to a release center. He filed suit
in federal district court, claiming a due process violation. The district
court dismissed the case, and Luca appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the
applicable regulations required prison guards to consider certain factors
when assessing Luca's treatment rating but did not require any specific
outcome based on those factors. Thus, the due process clauses of the U.S.
Constitution were not violated when the guards changed Luca's sex-offender
treatment rating based on their assessment of those factors in his case.
The district court was therefore affirmed and Luca's appeal dismissed. See:
Luca v. Admin. of Offender Services Bureau, 15 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1994)
(Table).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Luca v. Admin. of Offender Services Bureau
| Year | 1994 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 15 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1994) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
15 F.3d 1086 (Table) (C.A.9 (Ariz.)
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
(The Court's decision is referenced in a "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Tony A. LUCA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Augustine GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-15470.
Submitted Jan. 18, 1994.FN*
Decided Jan. 25, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-92-00294-RMB; Richard M. Bilby, Chief Judge, Presiding.
D.Ariz.
AFFIRMED.
Before: REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM FN**
*1 Arizona state prisoner Tony Luca appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of defendant James Gallagher from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Luca claims that Corrections Officer Gallagher violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when Gallagher assigned him to a work detail that threatened to aggravate an undocumented hernia condition. We have jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). We review de novo, Oscar v. University Students Cooperative Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992), and affirm.
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir.1989). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Buckey v. Los Angeles, 957 F.2d 652, 654 (9th Cir.1992).
In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under color of law, and that his conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right. Hernandez v. Johnson, 883 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.1987); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986).
"To state a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To determine deliberate indifference, the court must focus on two elements: "the seriousness of the prisoner's medical needs and the nature of the defendant's response to that need." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992). Thus, the more serious the medical needs of the prisoner and the more unwarranted the defendant's actions are in light of those needs, the more likely it is that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1061. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors, guards, or other personnel who intentionally deny or delay access to medical care or intentionally interfere with the treatment once prescribed. Estelle, 429 F.2d at 104-05.
Here, defendant Gallagher supervised Luca and another inmate in the unloading of beds and empty trash cans from two flatbed trailers. Luca did not advise Gallagher of any medical problems or any restrictions on the amount that he could lift until some time into the process of unloading. When Gallagher learned of Luca's condition, he sent him immediately to the medical department. Because Gallagher had no knowledge of Luca's medical needs until he was notified by Luca himself, and immediately dismissed him to the medical department upon learning of his condition, Luca's claim that Gallagher acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs is without merit. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. Therefore, Luca fails to establish that Gallagher violated his Eighth Amendment rights. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.
*2 Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing defendant Gallagher from Luca's § 1983 action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Buckey, 957 F.2d at 654.
AFFIRMED.
FN* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
(The Court's decision is referenced in a "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Tony A. LUCA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Augustine GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-15470.
Submitted Jan. 18, 1994.FN*
Decided Jan. 25, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-92-00294-RMB; Richard M. Bilby, Chief Judge, Presiding.
D.Ariz.
AFFIRMED.
Before: REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM FN**
*1 Arizona state prisoner Tony Luca appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of defendant James Gallagher from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Luca claims that Corrections Officer Gallagher violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when Gallagher assigned him to a work detail that threatened to aggravate an undocumented hernia condition. We have jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). We review de novo, Oscar v. University Students Cooperative Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992), and affirm.
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir.1989). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Buckey v. Los Angeles, 957 F.2d 652, 654 (9th Cir.1992).
In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under color of law, and that his conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right. Hernandez v. Johnson, 883 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.1987); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986).
"To state a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To determine deliberate indifference, the court must focus on two elements: "the seriousness of the prisoner's medical needs and the nature of the defendant's response to that need." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992). Thus, the more serious the medical needs of the prisoner and the more unwarranted the defendant's actions are in light of those needs, the more likely it is that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1061. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors, guards, or other personnel who intentionally deny or delay access to medical care or intentionally interfere with the treatment once prescribed. Estelle, 429 F.2d at 104-05.
Here, defendant Gallagher supervised Luca and another inmate in the unloading of beds and empty trash cans from two flatbed trailers. Luca did not advise Gallagher of any medical problems or any restrictions on the amount that he could lift until some time into the process of unloading. When Gallagher learned of Luca's condition, he sent him immediately to the medical department. Because Gallagher had no knowledge of Luca's medical needs until he was notified by Luca himself, and immediately dismissed him to the medical department upon learning of his condition, Luca's claim that Gallagher acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs is without merit. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. Therefore, Luca fails to establish that Gallagher violated his Eighth Amendment rights. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.
*2 Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing defendant Gallagher from Luca's § 1983 action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Buckey, 957 F.2d at 654.
AFFIRMED.
FN* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.