Hanson v. Blaine County et al

Filing 191

MEMORANDUM DECISION. The Court will instruct the jury to evaluate Hanson'sclaims under the objective deliberate indifference standard established in Gordon. 888 F.3d at 1124-25. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (kt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SCOTT HANSON,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00421-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.
BLAINE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Trial in this matter is set for April 26, 2021. The parties submitted proposed
jury instructions and trial briefs. Following review of these documents, the Court
ordered supplemental briefing to address whether Scott Hanson’s claim for
deliberate indifference should be evaluated under the Eighth or Fourteenth
Amendment. The parties have filed supplemental briefing. Dkt. 189, 190. Based on

MEMORANDUM DECISION - 1

the briefing and the record, the Court finds that Mr. Hanson’s claims against the
remaining defendants should be evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment
standard set out in Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018).
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hanson brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the remaining
defendants, Jesus Gonzalez and William Shubert. Hanson alleges the defendants
knew of and disregarded a serious risk of harm in failing to provide him with
prescription eye drops and medical attention relating to post-operative care for his
eyes while he was detained in the Gooding County Jail in 2014.
In August 2014, Hanson underwent surgery for cataracts in both eyes and
was prescribed prednisone eye drops. See Dkt. 82 at 2. On September 19, 2014,
Hanson was arrested on an alleged parole violation and was not allowed to take his
eye drops to jail with him. Id. Hanson subsequently suffered eye damage and
blindness – defendants’ knowledge of Hanson’s condition and need for medication,
and the cause of the subsequent medical issues are the subject of the trial. See id. at
12.
Hanson was arrested for an alleged parole violation on September 19, 2014,
on an Agent’s Warrant of Arrest signed by probation officer Kevin Wayt. Olsen
Dec. Ex. B, Dkt. 189-1 at 8. Hanson was detained at the Blaine County Jail from

MEMORANDUM DECISION - 2

September 19 to September 22, 2014. On September 22 he was transported to the
Gooding County Jail, where he was detained until being transported back to the
Blaine County Jail on September 24, 2014. On September 24, a Warrant of Arrest
was issued by the Commission of Pardons and Parole. Olsen Dec. Ex. D, Dkt. 1891 at 29. Prior to the warrant being issued by the Commission of Pardons and
Parole, Hanson had not received any hearing related to his alleged violation.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Hanson argues that he was essentially a pretrial detainee, and thus his
claims against the remaining defendants should be evaluated under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Defendants argue that Hanson should be considered a convicted
prisoner and his claims should be evaluated under the Eighth Amendment.
“Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after the State has
complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal
prosecutions.... [T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the
Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of
guilt in accordance with due process of law.” City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen.
Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671–
672, n. 40 (1977)).
The Court recognizes that the revocation of parole is not part of a criminal

MEMORANDUM DECISION - 3

prosecution, and that a parolee is not entitled to the “full panoply of rights” due to
a criminal defendant awaiting trial. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972).
However, revocation of probation or parole results in the loss of liberty. Id. Thus,
the Supreme Court has held that due process requires both an initial hearing and
final revocation hearing before probation or parole is revoked. Id. at 490; Gagnon
v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782–83 (1973).
In Sandoval v. Cty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 662 (9th Cir. 2021), the
Ninth Circuit applied the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference standard
established in Gordon to a probationer’s claim of deliberate indifference. There,
the probationer had been arrested during a probation compliance check for
possessing methamphetamine. Unbeknownst to the arresting officers, the
probationer had swallowed a significant amount of methamphetamine. The
probationer died of a drug overdose and his wife sued the County and jail staff for
deliberate indifference. The Ninth Circuit, without discussion, applied the
Fourteenth Amendment standard to the plaintiff’s claims.
Here, Hanson was arrested pursuant to an agent’s warrant and was being
held without a hearing. He had not received even the limited process required by
the Supreme Court in Morrisey. Thus, the Court finds that he was a prehearing
detainee and his claims against the defendants arise under the Fourteenth

MEMORANDUM DECISION - 4

Amendment. Accordingly, the Court will instruct the jury to evaluate Hanson’s
claims under the objective deliberate indifference standard established in Gordon.
888 F.3d at 1124-25.
DATED: April 23, 2021

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION - 5