Singleton v. Gates

── Singleton v. Gates ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KELVIN X. SINGLETON, No. 25-743 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC v. S. GATES, Chief of Health Care Appeal, in MEMORANDUM* individual and official capacity; M. LEWIS, Chief Physician and Surgeon, in individual and official capacity; B. RAMOS, Chief Medical Executive, in individual and official capacity; A. GALSTAIN, Chief Executive Officer, in individual and official capacity; M. NAWAZ, Primary Care Physician, in individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 21, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges; Dissent by Judge FORREST. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Kelvin X. Singleton is a California state prisoner who has suffered from glaucoma in both eyes since 1995 and lost partial vision in one eye as a result of an eye stroke. Singleton uses several prescription eye drops to reduce the pressure in his eyes. The eye drops cause light sensitivity as a side effect. This condition is painful on its own, and it also causes Singleton to suffer headaches and blurry vision. Singleton used prescription transitional lenses for several years to manage these symptoms. In 2018, Singleton broke his transitional lenses while working at his prison job. Without his glasses, he was unable to exercise outdoors or read by light and experienced headaches and spots in his vision. Shortly thereafter, Singleton was transferred to California State Prison-Los Angeles County (CSP-LAC). At multiple medical appointments, Singleton requested that his transitional glasses be replaced and offered to pay for the replacement lenses. Prison staff, including the defendants, repeatedly denied his requests. According to Singleton, they cited a state-wide prison policy that allows transitional lenses for only one eye condition, which Singleton does not have. Singleton filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse the district court’s order 2 25-743 granting summary judgment for defendants S. Gates, M. Lewis, B. Ramos, and M. Nawaz.1 We review de novo a district court order granting summary judgment and construe pro se filings liberally. Weldeyohannes v. Washington, 162 F.4th 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2025). “We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and then ask whether there is any ‘genuine dispute as to any material fact’ under the governing substantive law.” Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “The government has an ‘obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration,’ and failure to meet that obligation can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation cognizable under § 1983.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103– 05 (1976)). “In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical