EARL BOND, JR. V. KEITH MILLER, No. 15-55321 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARL HARRISON BOND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55321 D.C. No. 5:11-cv-02049-DDPPLA v. KEITH MILLER, Nurse at WVDC; JOSEPH FLORIN, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Defendants Keith Miller and Joseph Florin appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in Bond’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction over this * 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). interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Conner v. Heiman, 672 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012). We review de novo, and our review is limited to issues of law. Lee v. Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly denied Miller and Florin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bond, Bond raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Miller and Florin violated Bond’s constitutional right to adequate medical care, and that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (setting forth two-part test for qualified immunity claims); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 906 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the right to be free from officers intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care was clearly established); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (deliberate indifference may be established if a defendant “purposefully ignore[s] or fail[s] to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 15-55321

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.