ARACELY HERNANDEZ V. ROBERT SNIDER, No. 20-35014 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARACELY HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 20-35014 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

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.