Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0813-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricky Darnell HAMMONDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. MARTEL, Warden, CSP-New Folsom; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17453.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 7, 2010.
    Ricky Darnell Hammonds, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Stanton W. Lee, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricky Darnell Hammonds appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Hammonds’ claims against defendants Vanderostyne and Kim are based solely on allegations that they did not provide the Institution Classification Committee (“ICC”) — defendants Martel, Vance, Dunlap, and Vasquez — with information about his paranoia or problems. However, the record indicates that the ICC was aware of and considered his mental health state. As to defendants Martel, Vance, Dunlap, and Vasquez, Hammonds failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable official under the circumstances, after considering “all pertinent information,” would have inferred that placing him in a double-cell posed a substantial risk of serious harm. Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1050-52 (9th Cir.2002). Finally, the ICC did consider, among other things, Ham-monds’ mental health in determining whether he should be double-celled, and to the extent further mental evaluation would have been appropriate, such failure was, at best, negligence and ‘“cannot be condemned as the infliction of punishment.’ ” Id. at 1052 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Therefore, Hammonds failed to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hammonds, we hold that a reasonable prison official would not have known that Hammonds’ mental health history posed a “risk of serious harm [that] was so high” that placing him in a double-cell violated clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 1051.

Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground of qualified immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

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