eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-03

Aracely Hernandez v. Robert Snider ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 17 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELY HERNANDEZ,                               No.    20-35014
Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00624-SI
and
MEMORANDUM*
TERESA TORRES; GLORIA SELEEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT SNIDER, Dr.; S. SHELTON,
Dr.; D. BROWN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Oregon prisoner Aracely Hernandez appeals the district court’s judgment in
this action for federal civil rights violations and related state law claims.
Hernandez and two co-plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Snider, Dr. Steve Shelton, and
David Brown, who were all medical personnel at Coffee Creek Correctional
Facility. We affirm.
Hernandez argues that the district court erred in dismissing her
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claims on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
See Albino v. Baca,
    747 F.3d 1162
    , 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); see also 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We perceive no reversible error in the district court’s
disposition of those claims. The district court appropriately reconsidered its
dismissal of the § 1983 claim against Defendant Snider and sent that claim to the
jury on its merits. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1171. The district court dismissed
Hernandez’s § 1983 claims against Defendants Shelton and Brown for the
independent reason that she had not alleged or shown that they were personally
involved in violating her rights. See Taylor v. List,
    880 F.2d 1040
    , 1045 (9th Cir.
1989). But more to the point, in light of the jury’s ultimate verdict that Snider did
not violate Hernandez’s rights or sexually abuse her, Brown and Shelton could not
be liable to her for not preventing him from treating her. See Rodriguez v. County
2
of Los Angeles,
    891 F.3d 776
    , 798 (9th Cir. 2018); cf. City of Los Angeles v.
Heller,
    475 U.S. 796
    , 799,
    106 S. Ct. 1571
    , 1573,
    89 L. Ed. 2d 806
     (1986).
Hernandez next argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing
to decline to exercise jurisdiction over her Oregon claims after it had dismissed her
federal claims. See Tritchler v. County of Lake,
    358 F.3d 1150
    , 1153 (9th Cir.
2004);
    28 U.S.C. § 1367
    (c)(3); see also United States v. Hinkson,
    585 F.3d 1247
    ,
1261–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court was well within its discretion
to retain jurisdiction, particularly when federal claims remained pending
throughout the litigation and were ultimately tried to verdict. See Osborn v. Haley,
    549 U.S. 225
    , 245,
    127 S. Ct. 881
    , 896,
    166 L. Ed. 2d 819
     (2007); Arroyo v. Rosas,
    19 F.4th 1202
    , 1209–10, 1215–16 (9th Cir. 2021); cf. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.
Cohill,
    484 U.S. 343
    , 350 & n.7,
    108 S. Ct. 614
    , 619 & n.7,
    98 L. Ed. 2d 720
    (1988).
We decline to consider on appeal any issues Hernandez failed to raise in her
opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh,
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
3