Court Opinion

ID: 9403168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 17:00:51.380474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:05.096582
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 20 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID L. SHELTON,                                No.    22-15470

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No.
                                                 3:19-cv-00420-MMD-CSD
 v.

MICHAEL MINEV; et al.,                           MEMORANDUM*

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                  Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 16, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      David Shelton appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of one of his

claims and its summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on two of his

other claims in this action alleging deliberate indifference to and retaliation in

treating Shelton’s medical conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1291, and we affirm.

      Shelton challenges the district court’s summary judgment on his first claim

for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment for failure to timely treat

his tooth decay. We review a district court’s summary judgment de novo, Nunez v.

Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010), and identify no error. Delay in

dental treatment alone does not amount to deliberate indifference. Hunt v. Dental

Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989), citing Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison

Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). There is no evidence in the record

that prison officials “purposefully ignore[d] or fail[ed] to respond to” Shelton’s

tooth pain. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), rev’d on

other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). Indeed,

when Shelton filed his June 25, 2018, grievance regarding his tooth pain, he was

treated within a week and frequently thereafter. Shelton has not offered evidence

that the timing of his treatment resulted in any additional injury or harm.

      Shelton also challenges the district court’s summary judgment on his second

claim for retaliation under the First Amendment against Dr. Yup for filing

grievances about allegedly poor dental care. Reviewing de novo, we identify no

error. Shelton fails to identify any evidence that Dr. Yup’s reason for postponing

his November 2018 appointment—that she had no power to the dental chair or

instruments—was pretext for punishing him for filing grievances. See Nelson v.

                                          2
Pima Community College, 83 F.3d 1075, 1081–82 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[M]ere

allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary

judgment.”). Shelton did not raise his alternate theory—that Dr. Yup’s comments

about his grievances themselves amounted to retaliation—in the district court, so

we will not consider it now. See In re Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 217 F.3d 1161, 1165

(9th Cir. 2000).

      Shelton last claims error in the district court’s dismissal of his Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference claim for failure to warn him of the side effects

of Elavil, a medication prescribed to him. We review a district court’s dismissal

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening process de novo, Watison v.

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012), and identify no error. As the district

court told Shelton prior to his opportunity to amend, none of the named defendants

were involved in originally prescribing Elavil to him. See Benson v. Terhune, 304

F.3d 874, 885 (9th Cir. 2002) (no affirmative duty for non-prescribing prison staff

to provide information about medication to patient who took treatment without

asking for further information). Shelton did not allege that any named defendant

forced him to take Elavil, and in fact concedes that his request to be taken off

Elavil was followed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3