NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PAMELA AHLIN; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15831

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00005-LJO-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Ell Shehee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations

arising from his time as a pre-commitment civil detainee and civilly committed 

Sexually Violent Predator. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15831 

review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm in part, 

reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Shehee’s First Amendment free 

exercise claim because Shehee failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any 

defendant’s actions substantially burdened his practice of religion. See Jones v. 

Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirements for First Amendment 

free exercise claim).

The district court properly dismissed Shehee’s claim for denial of access to 

the courts because Shehee failed to allege facts sufficient to show he suffered an 

actual injury. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (requirements 

for denial of access to courts claim).

The district court properly dismissed Shehee’s claims of constitutionally 

inadequate medical care against defendants Ahlin, King, Sanduh, and Waggoner 

because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show these defendants personally 

participated in the alleged rights deprivation. See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (outlining 

requirement of personal participation in alleged constitutional deprivation). The 

district court properly dismissed Shehee’s claim of constitutionally inadequate 
3 16-15831 

medical care against Dr. Nguyen arising out of the events following Shehee’s 

surgery in April 2014 because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show Dr. 

Nguyen’s decisions during that time were a “substantial departure from accepted 

professional judgment, practice, or standards.” Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 

307, 323 (1982).

However, dismissal of Shehee’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical 

care against Drs. Tur and Nguyen arising from events occurring prior to Shehee’s 

surgery in April 2014 was premature. Shehee alleged these defendants knew 

Shehee’s wrist was fractured yet failed to treat it, other than prescribing him 

Tylenol and Motrin, for over one year. Liberally construed, these allegations were 

“sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer,” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d 

at 1116, because under any potentially applicable standard they state a claim of 

constitutionally inadequate medical care. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 

1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows 

of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); see also Jones v. Blanas, 

393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (pre-commitment civil detainees entitled to 

protections at least as great as individuals accused but not convicted of a crime); 

Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323 (standard for conditions of confinement claim 
4 16-15831 

applicable to civilly committed individuals). Accordingly, we reverse and remand 

for further proceedings as to this claim.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Shehee 

leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp., 232 F.3d 

719, 725 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to 

amend when amendment would be futile . . .”); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 

F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretion “particularly broad” 

when it has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend).

We reject as without merit Shehee’s contentions concerning his declination 

of the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.