N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID HODGES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OR IZON HEALTH, INC .; TR ANG TR AN, R N; ANDR

EW GR ASLEY, M D; C HER YL C ALC AGNO, FNP, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
and C LAC KAM AS C O UNTY; JOSEPH M C C AR THY, M D; WA LTER HAR DIN, DO, De fe nda

n ts. No. 20-35066 D.C . No. 6:15-c v-00521-AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon John V. Ac osta , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 3, 2020 ** 

# FIL ED
DEC 7 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : TR OTT, SILVER M AN, a nd NR SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s David Hodge s a

p pe a l s the judgm e nt e nte re d in fa vor of the de fe nda

nts in his
a c tion c la im ing de libe ra te indiffe re nc e and m e dic a l ne glige nc e while he wa s a pre t ria l de ta ine e in C la c kam a s C ounty Ja il. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd re v i e w de novo the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt. N

e v . De p’t. of C orr. v . Gre e n , 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion by de ny i ng the
m otion for a

ppointm e nt of a

third pro bono c ounse l. Palme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth the sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xc e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s te s t). Pro bono c ounse l re pre se nte d Hodge s e arly in the c a se , am e nde d the c om

pla int, c onduc te d e xte n sive disc o ve ry , inte rvie we d Hodge s’ s
c ardiologist, a

nd ne gotia

t e d a se ttle m e nt whilesum

m ary judgm e nt wa s pe n ding. C ounse l turne d e xte nsive disc ove ry ove r to Hodge s a fte r he fire d he r. Hodge s the n de m onstra

te d a n a b ility to unde rsta

nd a nd prose c ute his c a s e and pa rtia lly pre v a i le d on sum m ary judgm e n t. The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion by de c lining to
a ppoint a m e dic a l e xpe rt a fte r Hodge s’ s withdre whis m otion a nd inform e d the
c ourt tha t he ha d loc ate d a

pro bono e xpe rt. C

l aiborne v . Blause r , 934 F.3d 885,

2901 n.7 (9th C ir. 2019) (e xpla ining thedistric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to a p point a
m e dic a l e xpe rt). The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion by de ny i ng Hodge s’ s
re que s ts to re ope n disc ove ry . G re e n , 648 F.3d a t 1018 (se tting forth the

sta nda rd of re v ie w). Pro bono c ounse l ha d de pose d the nam e d de fe nda

nts, obta ine d
num e rous doc um e nts from the de fe nda

nts, a nd turne d the disc ove ry

ove r to Hodge s. Although Hodge s wa n te d to de pose his c ardiologist, he c o n c e de d tha

t pro bono c ounse l ha d inte rvie we d the doc tor, who substa

ntia lly a gre e d with the de fe nda n ts’ e xpe rt m e dic a l witne ss. The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion by holding tha

t Exhibit 16 (we

bsite inform ation from

the Nationa l Institute

of He a lth a

nd a ha ndout from

the Am e ric an He art Assoc iation) wa s ina dm issible to prove the
m e dic a l sta

nda rd of c are for tre atm e nt of Hodge s’ s he a rt c ondition in ja

il. Gre e n , 648 F.3d a

t 1018 (holding tha

t we re v ie w for an

a buse of disc re tion a

nd a ffirm

“ unle ss [the ] e vide n tia

ry ruling wa s m anife stly

e rrone ous a

n d pre judic i a l.” ). As a
m atte r of la

w, Hodge s ’ s own la

y opinion c annot c re ate a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t re g arding thene e d for a

spe c ific ty

pe of m e d ic a l tre atm e nt or e sta blish the sta nda rd of c are for ne glige nc e . Frank lin v . Or. State W

e lfare Div
. , 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th C ir. 1981) (holding tha t “ [a ] diffe re nc e of opinion be t we e n a prisone r3patie nt a

nd prison m e dic a l a

uthoritie s re ga

rding tre atm e nt doe s not giverise to a § 1983 c la i m ” ); Tre e

s v . Ordone

z , 311 P.3d 848, 854 (Or. 2013) (holding tha t e xpe rt te stim ony is ne c e ssa

ry to e sta blish thesta

nda rd of c are in m ost Ore gon m e dic a l
m a lpra c tic e c a se s). C ontra ry to Hodge s’ s a

rgum e nt, the de fe nse e xpe rt, Dougla s Dawle y , M .D., suffic ie ntly substa ntia te d his opinion. The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion by giving Hodge s a

n
a dditiona l two m onths, inste a d of 120 da y s, to re s pond to there m a i ning sum m ary judgm e nt issue s. A hanc hian v . Xe non Pic ture s, Inc
. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth the

sta nda rd of re vie w). The m otion ha d be e n pe nding for ove r two y e ars. In a

ny e ve nt, the distric t c ourt subse que ntly gave Hodge s se ve ra l
e xte nsions of time to obta i n his e xpe rt opinion a nd file a surre ply to the m otion. Hodge s ha d m ore tha

n e nough tim e to re spond to the m otion. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r for the de fe n da nts on thede libe ra te indiffe re nc e c la im
. Gordon v . C nty . of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th C ir. 2018) (se tting forth the

obje c t ive de libe ra te indiffe re nc e sta n da rd for pre tria l de ta ine e m e dic a l c are c la im s). At m ost, thee vide nc e e sta b lishe s a diffe re nc e of opinion be twe e n Hodge s him se lf a n d the m e dic a l e xpe rts re g arding the ty pe of
m e dic a l tre atm e nt tha

t Hodge s should ha

ve re c e ive d in ja il. As a

m atte r of la

w, the diffe re nc e of opinion doe s not rise to the le v e l of de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . Sanc he z
4v . Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th C ir. 1989), c iting E ste llev . Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976); Frank

lin , 662 F.2d a

t 1344. Hodge s a l le ge s tha

t he didn’ t re c e ive while in ja il the angiogra m orde re d by his c ardiologist be fore he wa s tra nsfe rre d to the prison twe nty -one da y s la te r. He ha s not shown tha

t t his isola te d inc ide nt c a

use d a ny ha rm . The re fore , he ha sn’ t shown de libe ra te indiffe re n c e . Shaple y v . N e v . Bd. of State

Prison C omm’rs , 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th C ir. 1985) (holding tha t a “ m e re de l ay

of surge ry , without more , is insuffic ie nt to sta

te a c la im of de libe ra te m e dic a l indiffe re nc e ” ). Fina lly , sum

m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r on the sta te ne glige n c e c la im
. Hodge s wa s not qua lifie d to opineon the sta nda rd of c are . Tre e

s , 311 P.3d a

t 854 (holding tha

t e xpe rt te stim ony

is ne c e s sa

ry to e sta blish thesta

nda rd of c are in m ost Ore gon m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e c a se s). In a ny e ve nt, the m e dic a l e xpe rt opine d tha t Hodge s re c e ive d the prope r c are , did not suffe r a he art atta c k while he wa s in ja il,
and the c are provide d in ja il did not c a use Hodge s he art da

m a ge . R athe r, any dam a ge wa s c a

use d by the natura l progre ssion of his he art dise a se and c ould not be linke d to his tre atm e nt in ja il. AFFIRM E D.

5