Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Telly Alexander HEATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greg JONES; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Joan Barton, Defendant.
    No. 15-35211
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    Telly Alexander Heath, Pendleton, OR, Pro Se.
    Susan Reid Yorke, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Telly Alexander Heath, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. 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 because Heath failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs by housing him in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit, Intensive Management Unit, or Behavioral Health Unit. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health). Further, Heath failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in these units denied him the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).

Heath’s motion for appellees’ default is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.