Cion Peralta v. T. Dillard

Opinion by Judge FERNANDEZ; Dissent by Judge BERZON.

OPINION

Cion Adonis Peralta appeals the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dr. Thaddeus Dillard and Dr. Junaid Fitter and its judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Sheldon Brooks, in Peralta’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs related to dental care. In this opinion, we decide whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the question of whether Dr. Brooks could be held responsible for failing to provide services when he lacked resources. 1 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Peralta was incarcerated at various California state prisons, prior to January 24, 2004, when he arrived at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“Lancaster”). He remained in Lancaster until February 7, 2006. While he was there, Dr. Brooks was a staff dentist.

Within three days of his arrival at Lancaster, Peralta submitted oral and written requests for dental care. He asserted that he had cavities and bleeding gums and that he needed to receive treatment for pain. Having received no immediate response, Peralta filed a Form 602 Inmate Appeal on July…

dissenting:

The majority upholds a jury instruction absolving a prison dentist of liability for providing constitutionally deficient care, even though under our case law, he was not entitled to be so exonerated. 1 Because the instruction in question does not properly state any applicable rule under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Eighth Amendment—whether with respect to the requisite mens rea, causation requirement, any immunity doctrine, or otherwise—I respectfully dissent.

I

A reasonable juror could conclude that the record in this case establishes the following facts regarding Dr. Sheldon Brooks’s deliberate indifference to Cion Peralta’s serious medical needs:

Shortly after arriving at Lancaster prison in June 2004, Peralta made a formal request for dental care to address his bleeding gums and pain in his teeth. After receiving no response for about a month, he filed a written appeal seeking dental attention to his “severe pain.” The prison responded by placing him on the “routine” dental care waiting list. Patients on that list could expect to wait about twelve months to receive care.

Dr. Brooks initially saw Peralta on October 15, 2004. At the appointment, Peralta complained…

BACKGROUND

Peralta was incarcerated at various California state prisons, prior to January 24, 2004, when he arrived at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“Lancaster”). He remained in Lancaster until February 7, 2006. While he was there, Dr. Brooks was a staff dentist.

1 W e address Peralta’s claims against Dr. Dillard and Dr. Fitter in an unpublished memorandum disposition filed this date. PERALTA V . DILLARD

Within three days of his arrival at Lancaster, Peralta submitted oral and written requests for dental care. He asserted that he had cavities and bleeding gums and that he needed to receive treatment for pain. Having received no immediate response, Peralta filed a Form 602 Inmate Appeal on July 15, 2004. He stated that he had infected teeth, cavities, and severe pain, but he had not been seen by a dentist despite having submitted requests. The initial informal response by the medical appeals analyst, dated August 13, 2004, indicated that the appeal was partially granted; he was placed on a waiting list to see a dentist.

The wait for routine care could take up to twelve months, but emergency dental cases were given a higher priority. The length…