NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEVIN ANDRICH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff,

individually and in his official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John Doe

Jail Commander of Lower Buckeye Jail,

individually and in his official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John Doe

Radiologist, Assigned to Lower Buckeye

Jail, individually and in his official

capacity; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as

John Doe/Jane Doe Phoenix Facility

Health Administrator, individually and in

his official capacity; UNKNOWN

PARTIES, named as John Doe/Jane Doe IX, employed to Work for Sheriff Joseph

Arpaio and/or Correctional Health

Services, individually and in their official

capacity; CORIZON HEALTH, INC.;

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES,

individually and in its official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John

Doe/Jane Doe, Tucson Facility Healthcare

Administrator, individually and in his/her

No. 20-15950

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-02111-DJH-JZB

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

SEP 10 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
official capacity; UNKNOWN PARTY,

named as John Doe Dentist, Dentist

Assigned to Lower Buckeye Jail,

individually and in his official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John Doe

Doctor Assigned to Lower Buckeye Jail,

individually and in his official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Jane Doe

Doctor Assigned to Alhambra Prison,

individually and in his official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Jane Doe

Doctor Assigned to ADC’s Tucson Prison,

individually and in her official capacity;

JESSE COONS, previously named as

Doctor John Doe Coons Assigned to

ADC’s Safford Prison, individually and in

his official capacity / Dr.; UNKNOWN

PARTIES, named as John Doe/Jane Doe

XI-XX Employed by Corizon, individually

and in his/her official capacity;

UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John Doe,

Physical Therapist, Assigned to ADC’s

Safford Prison. individually and in his

official capacity; UNKNOWN PARTY,

named as Defendant XYZ, an Entity

Incorporated, individually and in its

official capacity; ANN MULLEN, facility

health administrator; UNKNOWN

PARTIES, named as John/Jane Doe Health

Administrator; MARICOPA COUNTY;

SUSAN OSRICH, NP; CONSTANCE

MUHAMMAED, RN; KETUBAH

VOLPE, NP; CORIZON, LLC; LISA

ANN EASTMAN; LISA LYON, assistant

facility health administrator; PENNY

FISHER, clinical coordinator; SANDRA

SEABOURNE, medical records

2
supervisor; GLEN BABICH, Dr., regional

medical director; WINFRED WILLIAMS,

Dr., regional medical director; JUSTIN

WEISS, Dr., former radiologist; SCOTT

ELLIS, Dr., orthopedic surgeon;

UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as John

Doe/Jane Doe I-X, 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 9, 2021** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

Devin Andrich appeals the district court order granting summary judgment

in favor of the county defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action

alleging a Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee dental care claim. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Gordon v. Cnty. of

Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper for the county defendants. Andrich failed to

establish that the defendants acted with objective deliberate indifference to serious

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3
dental needs or put Andrich at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm. See id.

at 1124-25 (setting forth the elements of a Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee

medical care claim). This case is not like Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081

(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), where the prison continued to deny care for severe,

emergency dental problems while the inmate experienced severe pain. At most,

Andrich established a difference of opinion regarding his dental care. See Gordon,

888 F.3d at 1125 (requiring “something akin to reckless disregard”); Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a difference of opinion

regarding treatment does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

4