Francis

facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. 1. It’s easy to conclude that Francis has stated a Bivens claim against the Dublin Defendants. She alleges that she was pregnant, that she was having many serious complications, that she begged the defendants repeatedly for medical assistance, and that the defendants effectively ignored the concerns she was expressing—failing, among other things, to get her examined by an OB/GYN for five months. She also alleges that each of the defendants knew she was pregnant, knew of her complaints regarding the complications she was experiencing, and knew that nobody at the prison was responding. Her claim against these defendants does not meaningfully differ from the claims in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), Stanard v. Dy, 88 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2023), and Watanabe v. Derr, No. 23-15605, 2024 WL 4097456 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2024). And contrary to the government’s argument, Francis’s claim is not limited to allegations of a systemic failure; she plausibly alleges knowledge of and involvement by each of the Dublin Defendants (including the wardens and the Western Regional Medical Director) in the decision to ignore her…