Jury Properly Instructed Prison Dentist ’s Care May Be Considered In The Context Of Available Resources.

As soon as plaintiff arrived in prison, he sought dental care, complaining he had cavities and his gums were bleeding. He saw a dentist twice during the year, but was dissatisfied with the care he received and filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages against the prison dentist and others, claiming his rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated. The federal trial judge dismissed most of the defendants and a jury found in favor of the dentist, so the prisoner appealed, contending the jury was improperly instructed. The court had instructed the jury that “whether a dentist or doctor met his duties to Plaintiff [] under the Eighth Amendment must be considered in the context of the personnel, financial, and other resources available to him or her or which he or she could reasonably obtain.” Noting there was plenty of evidence to support a finding that a lack of resources prevented the dentist from cleaning the prisoner’s teeth sooner, and that it was up to the jury to decide whether the dentist was deliberately indifferent in failing to put plaintiff on the emergency list, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment was affirmed. (Peralta v. Dillard (Ninth Cir.; March 6, 2014)744 F.3d 1076.)