James Allen Floyd v. Ada County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES ALLEN FLOYD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ADA COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35481
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00150-DCN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 6, 2022 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges
James Floyd appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of the defendants in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Gordon v.
Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018), and affirm.
FILED
MAY 10 2022
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Floyd’s requests
to appoint counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)
(setting forth the standard of review and exceptional circumstances test).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Floyd’s request to
amend to add a party and new claim, which was made five years after the events
occurred, well after the deadline to amend, and while summary judgment was
pending. Roberts v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir. 1981).
Summary judgment was proper for the defendants. Floyd failed to establish
that any named defendant acted with objective deliberate indifference to serious
medical or mental health needs. Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1124-25 (setting forth the
objective deliberate indifference standard for pretrial detainees); Mabe v. San
Bernardino Cnty., 237 F.3d 1101, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the
standards for county liability). Jail and medical records established that the nurses
scheduled and confirmed an appointment with a social worker within days of
Floyd’s request to be seen. There is no evidence that Floyd was taking medication
when he was booked into the jail in 2014 or that the nurse who performed the
initial assessments knew that he was taking medication. Moreover, she noted
unremarkable objective mental findings when she saw him. Floyd also failed to
establish that any defendant acted with objective deliberate indifference to a
2

-- 2 of 3 --

serious medical need by not providing better shoes when he complained that the
cheap jail shoes hurt his feet and made it hard to walk. Finally, Floyd failed to
establish that the jail policy for prescription medication prevented him from taking
the pain medication prescribed by the physician assistant. Although Floyd now
alleges that the medical records are inaccurate, he failed to come forward with
admissible evidence. Allegations are not the same as proof. See Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (an assertion that is “blatantly contradicted by the record,
so that no reasonable jury could believe it” will not create a genuine issue of
material fact at summary judgment).
We decline to consider issues not raised in the district court. Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --