DANIEL BREESE V. CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, No. 20-16020 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL L. BREESE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-16020 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01026-MTLESW v. CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, Medical Provider Contracted; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants, and UNKNOWN PARTY, Medical Staff Nurse; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, 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). Arizona state prisoner Daniel L. Breese appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand. The district court dismissed Breese’s claims for deliberate indifference regarding defendants’ treatment of Breese’s back condition because Breese failed to state a plausible claim. However, Breese alleged that he informed Doe medical staffers about pain in his back where he had recently had surgery, and provided the sheriffs with instructions for post-operative back care that the jail medical staff failed to follow. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fourteenth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care involves objective deliberate indifference). We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 20-16020
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.
