Case ID: f-appx_372/html/0754-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William J. BLUE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. SCAVETTA, Defendant-Appellee, and N. Grannis; et al., Defendants.
    No. 09-15604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 29, 2010.
    William J. Blue, III, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Vickie P. Whitney, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William J. Blue, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging that defendant Scavetta improperly denied him single-cell status for his obstructive sleep apnea, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the ADA claim because Blue did not raise a triable issue as to whether he was discriminated against by reason of, or entitled to an accommodation for, his alleged disability. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214-15 (9th Cir.2008) (stating requirements to show an ADA violation).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the due process claim because Blue failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he had a cognizable liberty interest at stake. See Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1315 (9th Cir.), amended by, 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that the placement of an inmate in less amenable and more restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim because Blue did not raise a triable issue as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (stating that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety).

Blue’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.