×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Qualified Immunity May Not Be Pled For the First Time in a Motion For Reconsideration
Mark Farquhar, a California state prisoner, prevailed on summary judgment
in a federal district court on a claim that prison medical staff had been
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Dr. William Cain, a
defendant, moved for reconsideration claiming he was entitled to qualified
immunity. Since Cain didn't make that claim in his motion for summary
judgment, the district court refused to consider it and ruled for Farquhar.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that
because Cain had shown no new evidence or change in the law since summary
judgment, the district court properly refused to consider qualified
immunity on the motion reconsideration. See: Farquhar v. Jones, 141
Fed.Appx. 539 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
in a federal district court on a claim that prison medical staff had been
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Dr. William Cain, a
defendant, moved for reconsideration claiming he was entitled to qualified
immunity. Since Cain didn't make that claim in his motion for summary
judgment, the district court refused to consider it and ruled for Farquhar.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that
because Cain had shown no new evidence or change in the law since summary
judgment, the district court properly refused to consider qualified
immunity on the motion reconsideration. See: Farquhar v. Jones, 141
Fed.Appx. 539 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
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
Farquhar v. Jones
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 141 Fed.Appx. 539 (9th Cir. 2005) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
MARK ANTHONY FARQUHAR, Plaintiff - Appellee v. JONES, Warden, Defendant and WILLIAM S. CAIN, M.D., Defendant - Appellant
No. 04-17032
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
141 Fed. Appx. 539; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS
July 11, 2005 **, Submitted
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
July 13, 2005, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. CV-02-05712-OWW. Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.
COUNSEL: For MARK ANTHONY FARQUHAR, Plaintiff - Appellee: Mark Anthony Farquhar, CMFSP - CALIFORNIA MEDICAL, FACILITY STATE PRISON (SOLANO), Vacaville, CA
For Defendant, JONES, Warden,
For WILLIAM S. CAIN, M.D., Defendant - Appellant: James E. Flynn, DAG, AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL (SAC), Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA
JUDGES: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*540] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
William S. Cain, M.D., a doctor at Avenal State Prison [**2] where appellee Mark Farquhar was incarcerated, appeals the district court's denial of his motions for summary judgment and reconsideration in Farquhar's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Cain did not raise the issue of qualified immunity in his motion for summary judgment and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's determination that the parties' evidence presents genuine issues of material fact. See Lee v. Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 2004)(district court's denial of summary judgment is not appealable unless the ground for the motion is qualified immunity). Although Cain asserted in his objections to the magistrate judge's report recommending denial of the summary judgment motion that he was entitled to qualified immunity, the district court properly declined to address this issue when it adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. See Greenhow v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988)(district court properly ruled that issues raised for the first time in [**3] objections to magistrate's report had been waived), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1992).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cain's motion for reconsideration, which raised the qualified immunity issue, because Cain did not show new evidence, legal error or a change in the law. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the district court properly determined that Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001), did not modify the well-established standards for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim based on lack of access to medical treatment.
Cain's motion to attach an appendix to the record is denied.
DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.
No. 04-17032
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
141 Fed. Appx. 539; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS
July 11, 2005 **, Submitted
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
July 13, 2005, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. CV-02-05712-OWW. Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.
COUNSEL: For MARK ANTHONY FARQUHAR, Plaintiff - Appellee: Mark Anthony Farquhar, CMFSP - CALIFORNIA MEDICAL, FACILITY STATE PRISON (SOLANO), Vacaville, CA
For Defendant, JONES, Warden,
For WILLIAM S. CAIN, M.D., Defendant - Appellant: James E. Flynn, DAG, AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL (SAC), Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA
JUDGES: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*540] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
William S. Cain, M.D., a doctor at Avenal State Prison [**2] where appellee Mark Farquhar was incarcerated, appeals the district court's denial of his motions for summary judgment and reconsideration in Farquhar's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Cain did not raise the issue of qualified immunity in his motion for summary judgment and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's determination that the parties' evidence presents genuine issues of material fact. See Lee v. Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 2004)(district court's denial of summary judgment is not appealable unless the ground for the motion is qualified immunity). Although Cain asserted in his objections to the magistrate judge's report recommending denial of the summary judgment motion that he was entitled to qualified immunity, the district court properly declined to address this issue when it adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. See Greenhow v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988)(district court properly ruled that issues raised for the first time in [**3] objections to magistrate's report had been waived), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1992).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cain's motion for reconsideration, which raised the qualified immunity issue, because Cain did not show new evidence, legal error or a change in the law. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the district court properly determined that Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001), did not modify the well-established standards for a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim based on lack of access to medical treatment.
Cain's motion to attach an appendix to the record is denied.
DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.