Crowley v. Bannister, No. 12-15804 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an inmate who has a history of bipolar disorder, delusions, Parkinson's disease, and hypertension, filed suit pro se against defendants, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed his claim and plaintiff, represented by counsel, appealed. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the appeal; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Dr. Bannister because plaintiff failed to submit evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Bannister was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Warden Neven and nurses Grisham, Diliddo, and Balao-Cledera because plaintiff expressly waived his appeal against them in his reply brief; vacated the clerk's entry of judgment in favor of Defendant Dr. Sussman because the district court abused its discretion in failing to comply with Rule 4(m); vacated the district court's decision denying plaintiff's request for leave to amend his second amended complaint to name additional defendants; and remanded with instructions to comply with Rule 4(m) with respect to Dr. Sussman and to allow plaintiff leave to amend his second amended complaint.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a Nevada state prisoner alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in the administration of his medication. The panel held that plaintiff failed to submit evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that his injury could have been avoided had Dr. Bannister implemented a policy allowing for the administration of three pill calls per day. The district court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bannister. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Warden Neven and nurses Grisham, Diliddo, and Balao-Cledera because Crowley expressly waived his appeal against them in his reply brief. The panel vacated the clerk’s entry of judgment in favor of Dr. Sussman because the district court abused its discretion in failing to comply with Rule 4(m). The panel held that because the record did not reflect that the district court provided the required Rule 4(m) notice prior to the clerk’s entry of judgment in favor of Dr. Sussman, plaintiff was “precluded from attempting to show good cause” or excusable neglect for his failure to serve Dr. Sussman in a timely manner. The panel also vacated the district court’s decision denying plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his second amended complaint to name additional defendants and to discover whether any delays on their part in providing medical treatment caused or exacerbated his Lithium toxicity. The panel remanded with instructions to comply with Rule 4(m) with respect to Dr. Sussman and to allow plaintiff leave to amend his second amended complaint.
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.