Miles

Miles v. Daniels

Good Law
231 F. App'x 591
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 2, 2007No. 05-35395California428 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Clinton Brown Miles, an inmate in federal prison, brought an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against Michael D. Jones, the prison dentist, and Charles A. Daniels, the prison warden, because of a 19-month delay in obtaining dentures. We affirm the district court’s summary judgment in favor of both Jones and Daniels.

1. There is no genuine factual dispute that Jones acted “within the scope of his office or employment” at al. relevant times, thus barring any Bivens action against him. 42 U.S.C. § 233 (a); see Carl *592 son v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 20 , 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980). As required by Oregon law, Jones’ interactions with Miles all occurred “substantially within the time and space limits authorized by [his] employment.” Fearing v. Bucher, 328 Or. 367 , 977 P.2d 1163, 1166 (1999). Jones’ remark that Miles “was responsible for loosing [sic] all of his teeth” does not turn into triable issues either whether Jones was “motivated, at least partially, by a purpose to serve [his] employer” or whether his acts were “of a kind that [he] was hired to perform.”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.