Gabriel Ralph Reyes v. Michael C. Sayre, M.d.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL RALPH REYES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL C. SAYRE, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16920
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00620-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gabriel Ralph Reyes appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
FILED
DEC 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

2004). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants
Torrance, Walker, and Sayre because Reyes failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether these defendants were aware of and disregarded Reyes’
risk of withdrawal. See id. at 1058 (to be deliberately indifferent, treatment must
be medically unacceptable under the circumstances and chosen in conscious
disregard of an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health).
However, as to defendant Williams, Reyes submitted evidence showing that
he asked Williams about suffering from drug withdrawal and requested to have his
medication tapered or be given some other medication to lessen the withdrawal
effects, and Williams stated that he would not taper Reyes’ medication or give
Reyes anything to treat withdrawal. Reyes also submitted evidence showing that
Williams was aware that the cessation of his narcotic medication without tapering
created a substantial risk of serious harm to Reyes’ health and that Williams
disregarded that risk. Accordingly, because there is a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether Williams was aware of an excessive risk to Reyes’ health due to
withdrawal but ignored that risk, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on
the deliberate indifference claim against Williams. See Lolli v. County of Orange,
351 F.3d 410, 421 (9th Cir. 2003) (vacating summary judgment where evidence
14-16920 2

-- 2 of 3 --

would have allowed a jury to infer defendants knew of the risk of harm plaintiff
faced if denied medical attention); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir.
2004) (verified motions and pleadings are admissible to oppose summary
judgment).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
14-16920 3

-- 3 of 3 --