N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ENR IQUE M ONTIJO,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. UNKNOW

N SW ANEY; UNKNOW N B ENNETT, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 17-16465

D.C . No. 4:13-c v-01439-DC B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 14, 2018 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , SILER , ** and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nts B e nne tt a

nd Swa ne y a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of
sum m ary judgm e nt on the issue of qua lifie d im m unity . On de novo re vie w, Ham by v. Ha m m ond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th C ir. 2016), we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
OCT 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.1. Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa v ora ble to Pla intiff, id., there
e xist que s tions of fa c t a s to whe the r B e nne tt a c t ua lly kne w of Pla intiff’ s se rious
m e dic a l ne e ds a

nd a s to whe the r B e n ne tt re sponde d to thosene e ds with de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . Se e Je tt v. Pe nne r, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2006) (sta ting
e le m e nts of a c la im

of de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt). First, som e e v i de nc e sugge sts tha t B e nne tt kne w of Pla intiff’ s se rious
m e dic a l ne e ds. Pla intiff c l a im s tha t, on the date s whe n B e nne tt sa w him , he wa s
una ble to wa lk, e at, ope n his e y e s, c he w, ta lk, or bre a the without ga sping for
a ir— a ll c le arly

obse rva ble and se ve re sy

m ptom s. The re are thus que stions of fa c t
a s to whe the r B e nne tt a c tua lly kne w of Pla intiff’ s c ondition. Se e Fa rm e r v. B re nna n, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994) (expla i ning tha t " a fa c tfinde r m ay

c onc lude that a prison offic ia l kne w of a substa ntia l risk from

the ve ry fa c t tha

t the risk wa s obvious" ). Se c ond, som e e vide nc e sugge sts tha t B e nne tt’ s re sponse to Pla intiff’ s ne e d s
wa s unre a sona

b le
. B e n ne tt obse rve d Pla intiff suffe ring from grave sy m p tom s a nd did nothing to obta

in he lp for Pla intiff. The de nia l of m e dic a l c are in the fa c e of a n obvious e m e rge nc y c onstitute s de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . Hoptowit v. R ay , 682 F.2d 1237, 1259 (9th C ir. 1982), ove rrule d on othe r grounds by Sa ndin v. C o nne r, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
2The e vide nc e , vie we d in Pla intiff’ s fa v or, doe s not support B e nne tt’ s

argum e nt tha

t he wa s re ly ing on them e dic a l opinions of the prison’ s nursing sta ff. Although non-me dic a l sta ff a re e ntitle d to qua l ifie d im m unity whe n the y a c t (or fa il to a c t) in re lia

n c e on a " bona fide m e dic a l opinion," Ham b y , 821 F.3d a

t 1095, 1 on the pre se n t re c o rd, the re wa s no bona fide m e dic a l opinion in this c a s e
— or, a t le a st, not oneof whic h B e n ne tt wa s a ware . Furthe rm ore , Pla intiff’ s c e llm a te told B e nne tt tha

t the nursing sta ff re fuse d to he lp or e x a m ine him , a nd B e nne tt, a fte r be ing told a s m

uc h, did nothing, in the

fa c e of se rious sy

m ptom s, to ve rify that Pla i ntiff wa s re c e iving a d e quate tre a tm e nt. Ac c ordingly , vie wing the e vide nc e in Pla i ntiff’ s favor, B e nne tt de nie d Pla intiff a c c e ss to tre a tm e n t e ve n though heha d
re a s on to think tha

t Pla intiff wa s re c e iving no c are a t a ll. 2. The re e xist que stions of fa c t with re spe c t to Swa ne y ’ s c onduc t, too. First, the obviousne ss of Pla intiff’ s a lle ge d sy m ptom s sugge sts tha

t Swane y , like B e nne tt, a c tua lly kne w of De fe n da nt’ s se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. Fa rm e r, 511 U.S. a t 842. Se c ond, som e e vide nc e sugge sts tha t Swa ne y re s ponde d to thosene e ds with de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e . Vie wing the e vide nc e in Pla intiff’ s favor, Swa ne y visite d

1 W e a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t De fe nda nts would be

e ntitle d to re ly on a nurse ’ s opinion, a s distinc t from a doc tor’ s opinion. 3Pla i ntiff’ s c e ll on or a round August 1, 2012, obse rve d him suffe ring from

grave sym ptom s, a nd did nothing. Although Swa ne y argue s tha

t he de c line d to ta

ke
a c tion be c a

use he wa s re ly ing on theopinions of the prison’ s m e dic a l sta ff, Swane y t e stifie d tha

t, be fore August 2, he

wa s not pe rsona l ly

aw are of whe the r
m e dic a l sta ff ha d se e n

Pla intiff. The re is thus a que stion of fa c t a s to whe t he r Swane y a c te d with de libe ra te indiffe re nc e by fa iling to obta

i n he lp for Pla intiff on August 1. 3. Vie wing the e vide nc e in Pla intiff’ s favor, De fe nda nts viola te d c l e arly
e sta blishe d la w. Ha m by , 821 F.3d a

t 1090–91. It is " be y ond de ba t e ," id. a t 1092, that a prison offic ia l a c ts with de libe ra te indiffe re nc e whe n the offic ia l de nie s
m e dic a l c are to a

prisone r e xhibiting se

rious sy m ptom s of pa i n or dise a se , Hunt v. De nta l De p’ t, 865 F.2d 198, 201 (9th C ir. 1989). De fe nda nts’ argum e n t tha

t the y did not viola

te c le arly e s ta blishe d la w be c a use the y a c te d pursua

nt to thenursing sta ff’ s opinions is una

va i ling be c a

u se tha t argum e nt de pe nds on there solution of dispute d issue s of fa c t, in De fe nda nts’ fa vor. Se e W ilkins v. C ity of Oakla nd, 350 F.3d 949, 956 (9th C ir. 2003) (" W he re the offic e rs’ e ntitle m e n t to qua lifie d im m unity de pe nds on there solution of dispute d issue s of fa c t in the ir favor, a nd
a ga inst the non-m o ving pa rty , sum m ary judgm e nt is not a

ppropria te ." ). AFFIRM E D.
41 Montijo v. Unknown Swaney , No. 17

- 16465 SILER, Circuit Judge, d issentin g . I respectfully dissent in this case with regard to the question of qualified immunity. There is no existing case law which describes the conduct of either Bennett or Swaney as having violated Montijo’s constitutional rights. See Hamby v. Hammond , 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Bennett es corted a nurse to Montijo’s cell when that nurse checked the vital signs of Montijo. On the following day, when Bennett came to Montijo’s cell, Bennett went to medical, returned to the cell, and told Montijo that he had talked to the medical staff and a
n urse said she had seen Montijo and there was nothing wrong with him. In Swaney’s case, he informed medical staff of Montijo’s complaints either before or after he spoke to Montijo, but the medical staff said that they had already addressed the medical issu es that morning and that whatever was wrong with Montijo “didn’t require any further response.” Both officers relied upon the medical staff at the institution and did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by taking no further action. T hey had a right to rely upon the professional staff. Therefore I would grant qualified immunity to both officers in this case. 

# FILED
OCT 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S