David M. Anthony v. Earl Dowdle R. Allred Frances Deck

853 F.2d 741 David M. ANTHONY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl DOWDLE; R. Allred; Frances Deck, Respondents-Appellees. No. 87-2472. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 14, 1988 * . Decided Aug. 4, 1988. Francisco Leon, Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant. John F. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Ariz., Tucson, Ariz., for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before HALL, KOZINSKI and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiff-appellant David M. Anthony, an inmate in custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees, Arizona state prison officials. Anthony claims violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 , asserting that the defendants exhibited "deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs" in violation of the eighth amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). 2 * Anthony alleges that on December 12, 1982 he was working at the Alpine…

Plaintiff-appellant David M. Anthony, an inmate in custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees, Arizona state prison officials. Anthony claims violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , asserting that the defendants exhibited “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs” in violation of the eighth amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

I

Anthony alleges that on December 12, 1982 he was working at the Alpine Conservation Center while in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections. 1 He claims that Frances Deck, a civilian employed by the Department of Corrections, 2 instructed him to free a trailer that was stuck. Anthony asserts that Deck told him to hook a chain from the back of a stationary bulldozer to the tongue of the trailer. The trailer moved forward, and Anthony was pinned between the tongue of the trailer and the bulldozer.

Anthony claims that he “immediately complained of severe pain in the chest and back area and left upper…

dissenting:

Facts are in dispute in this case. The facts are material. If they prove true as alleged by the appellant, they would support a finding in his favor on the crucial question of whether the defendants acted with “deliberate indifference” toward his “serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). The material disputed facts are three:

1. Did the defendants know or should they have known of the potential seriousness of Anthony’s injuries? The defendants, as the moving party, allege lack of knowledge on two grounds: Anthony’s injuries were internal and not readily apparent. And Anthony himself did not know the full extent of his injury until 1984, one and a half years after the accident. Anthony, however, alleges that the defendants were aware of external indicia of internal damage of a potentially and ultimately serious nature: He had lost consciousness, vomited blood, experienced dizziness, and had to miss work for bed rest. He had also experienced and complained of chest pains, concomitant breathing problems and an inability to lift weight. Further, the defend *744 ants knew that Anthony was injured when a bulldozer…