Johnell Jackson v. Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNELL JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JALAL SOLTANIAN-ZADEH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-15851
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01132-MCE-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Dr. Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh appeals from the district court’s order
denying him qualified immunity in plaintiff Johnell Jackson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have
jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plumhoff v.
* 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
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15851
Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 771-73 (2014). We review de novo the district court’s
summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Isayeva v. Sacramento
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 872 F.3d 938, 946 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that, resolving all factual disputes and
drawing all reasonable inferences in Jackson’s favor, Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh is not
entitled to qualified immunity because Jackson’s right to be free from deliberate
indifference to an excessive risk to his health was clearly established, and a
reasonable official would have known that failing to provide for a lower bunk
assignment was unlawful under the circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555
U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (setting forth two-part test for qualified immunity); Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974
F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc.
v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (1997) (en banc) (“A serious medical need exists if the
failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury[.]”)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
To the extent defendant challenges the district court’s finding that the record
shows a “genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was at least
deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s health or safety by not ordering that plaintiff
be restricted to a lower bunk,” we lack jurisdiction to consider this finding in this

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15851
interlocutory appeal. See George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 834-36 (9th Cir. 2013)
(explaining limited scope of review of an interlocutory appeal involving denial of
qualified immunity).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --