Staggs Ex Rel. the Estate of Staggs v. Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINNIE STAGGS, as administrator of the No. 13-16086
Estate of Robert E. Staggs, deceased, and
MELISSA STAGGS, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00414-MCE-
KJN
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC., et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: CHRISTEN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that the prison
defendants were deliberately indifferent to Robert Staggs’ medical needs.
The parties agree that Staggs had serious medical needs in the form of
Hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, and complications from undiagnosed liver
cancer, among other ailments. The only issue is whether defendants, despite their
awareness of Staggs’ needs, were deliberately indifferent either in denying medical
care or in providing medically unacceptable care. Plaintiffs have alleged that
prison doctors continued to recommend and eventually arranged a three-pass core
liver biopsy even after two hospitals refused to perform the procedure under any
circumstances because of an elevated risk of internal bleeding. That fact, accepted
as true, plausibly suggests that the decision to order the biopsy was “medically
unacceptable under the circumstances,” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th
Cir. 1996), rather than reflecting a mere “difference of medical opinion.” Sanchez
v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). This allegation adequately supports
plaintiffs’ claim that the prison doctors consciously disregarded a substantial risk
of serious harm to Staggs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir.
2004). We therefore conclude that the district court erred in dismissing at the
pleading stage plaintiffs’ first claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (The court
properly dismissed plaintiffs’ fifth claim for relief, a ruling plaintiffs did not
Page 3 of 3
challenge in their opening brief. Thus, they waived this argument. See Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).)
The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ state law claims after dismissing plaintiffs’ federal claims. Given our
reversal of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ first claim for relief, we reinstate plaintiffs’
state law claims and leave it to the district court to decide whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.
REVERSED and REMANDED.