Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adrian Solorio, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed from the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The appeal came from the Eastern District of California, where District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston presided. The appellees were Warden W. Sullivan, E Barthelmes, I Ottsman, V Chavez, Clayton, R.J. Maciejewski, R Caldron, Correctional Doctor, S Jeffrey, Correctional Nurse, and Lt Cardenas.
The Ninth Circuit memorandum addressed both dismissal rulings and issues arising from the jury verdict. It stated that jurisdiction rested on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and that dismissal for failure to state a claim was reviewed de novo. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges O'Scannlain, Silverman, and N.R. Smith. It unanimously concluded that the case was suitable for decision without oral argument under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and the disposition was designated not for publication.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the dismissal of the supervisory-liability claims against E Barthelmes and Warden Sullivan. It held that the Second Amended Complaint did not allege facts establishing sufficient personal participation by either supervisor. The memorandum cited Felarca v. Birgeneau for the supervisor-liability test and Ashcroft v. Iqbal for the rule that conclusory allegations without supporting facts do not state a plausible claim. The court therefore treated the pleading deficiency as the absence of factual support for the required personal involvement, rather than as a resolution of disputed evidence.
The court also affirmed dismissal of the deliberate-indifference medical-care claims against Nurse Jeffrey and Dr. Calderon. It found that the Second Amended Complaint alleged no facts establishing that the medical staff were aware of and disregarded Solorio's alleged medical needs. Citing Toguchi v. Chung, the court identified the governing standard as knowledge of and disregard for an excessive risk to inmate health, and again relied on Iqbal to reject unsupported conclusory allegations.
Solorio's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim did not receive merits review. The panel held that he forfeited it by failing to raise the claim in pre-verdict and post-verdict motions before the district court, citing Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian for the preservation requirements. It also declined to consider the remaining arguments listed in the opening brief because they either had not been raised in the district court or were not supported by argument in the opening brief, citing Padgett v. Wright. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A section 1983 supervisory-liability claim requires factual allegations establishing the supervisor's personal participation, not merely a conclusory assertion of responsibility.
- A prison medical-care claim must plausibly allege that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner's health.
- The panel found no factual allegations that Nurse Jeffrey or Dr. Calderon were aware of and disregarded Solorio's alleged medical needs.
- A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a jury verdict must be preserved through the required pre-verdict and post-verdict motions in the district court.
- Arguments not presented below or not supported by argument in the opening brief may be left unconsidered on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established pleading and preservation rules to a prisoner's civil-rights appeal without announcing a new legal standard. Its analysis separates the viability of claims at the pleading stage from challenges to the evidence supporting a jury verdict: the supervisory and medical-care claims failed because the complaint lacked necessary factual allegations, while the evidentiary challenge was barred by forfeiture.
The memorandum also shows the practical importance of identifying each defendant's alleged conduct and preserving trial objections through the appropriate motions. Because the disposition is expressly not for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, its direct significance is principally to the parties rather than as binding circuit authority.