PATRICK RUSSELL V. JOCELYN LUMITAP, No. 18-55831 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to medical providers at Orange County Jail in 1983 claims alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Plaintiff, a detainee who died from a ruptured aortic dissection.
The court stated to defeat qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show that a reasonable official would have understood that their actions presented an unconstitutional substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Defendant, the on-call physician at the time, could not have reasonably believed that he could provide constitutionally adequate care without even examining a patient with Plaintiff’s symptoms. Therefore, the district court was correct in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity to this Defendant.
The court further held that the first nurse to see Plaintiff had access to facts from which an inference could be drawn that Plaintiff was at serious risk. The court held that the district court was correct in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity to Defendant.
The court also held that the second nurse to see Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. Reasoning that a jury could not reasonably conclude that this Defendant was deliberately indifferent. Finally, the court held that the third nurse to see Plaintiff was not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have inferred that Plaintiff was at serious risk if not hospitalized.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial, on summary judgment, of qualified immunity to medical providers at Orange County Jail in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants * While this panel was considering this case, another panel with priority issued its decision in Sandoval v. Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021). The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sandoval on December 13, 2021, and we decided Hyde v. City of Willcox, 23 F.4th 863 (9th Cir. 2022), also relevant to this case, on January 6, 2022. Counsel were ordered to brief the effects of those two cases on this one on January 25, 2022, and the briefs were filed on February 24 and 25, 2022. We accordingly revised our opinion as necessary and resubmitted this case on April 6, 2022. RUSSELL V. LUMITAP 3 were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Patrick John Russell, a pretrial detainee who died from a ruptured aortic dissection. The panel first held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage because defendants did not challenge the determination that there were genuine issues over material facts, but instead argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights on the record taken in the light most favorable to Russell. Applying Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021), the panel stated that to defeat qualified immunity plaintiffs must show that, given the available case law at the time, a reasonable official, knowing what Dr. Le, Nurse Teofilo, Nurse Trout, and Nurse Lumitap knew, would have understood that their actions presented such a substantial risk of harm to Russell that the failure to act was unconstitutional. Their actual subjective appreciation of the risk was not an element of the established-law inquiry. The panel held that under the circumstances, taking the facts most favorably to the plaintiffs, Dr. Le, the on-call physician at the time, could not have reasonably believed based on the clearly established law as it stood then that he could provide constitutionally adequate care without even examining a patient with Russell’s symptoms who had not responded to a dose of nitroglycerin. Therefore, the district court was correct in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity to Dr. Le. 4 RUSSELL V. LUMITAP The panel held that Nurse Teofilo had access to facts from which an inference could be drawn that Russell was at serious risk. Yet she did not call the paramedics, nor did she call Dr. Le to ask whether Russell’s worsening symptoms required anything more than the Motrin that had previously been prescribed. The district court was correct in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity to Nurse Teofilo. A reasonable jury could conclude that she met the standard for deliberate indifference. The panel held that Nurse Trout was entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. A jury could not, on the facts pleaded, reasonably conclude that Nurse Trout was deliberately indifferent. Though perhaps she should have called the paramedics, her having promptly called the physician on call and followed his instructions could not be categorized as deliberate indifference. The panel held that Nurse Lumitap was not entitled to qualified immunity. Drawing all inferences in plaintiff’s favor, a reasonable person in Nurse Lumitap’s position would have inferred that Russell was at serious risk if not hospitalized.
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.