Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0684-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dewey Steven TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip EARLEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15184
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    
      Dewey Steven Terry, Pro Se
    Matthew Marvin Grigg, Attorney, Nancy E. Hudgins, Attorney, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, Kyle Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Phillip Earley, Gary Lore-do, Joe Dobie
    Kenneth Robert Williams, Esquire, Kenneth R. Williams — Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dewey Steven Terry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Terry’s Eighth Amendment claim because Terry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether “he himself [wa]s being exposed to unreasonably high levels” of asbestos and lead. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (setting forth evidence needed to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference based on exposure to second-hand smoke); see also Wallis, 70 F.3d at 1077.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Terry’s state law claims because Terry did not comply with the claim-presentment requirement of the California Government Claims Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2; Ellis v. City of San Diego, Cal., 176 F.3d 1183, 1190 (9th Cir. 1999); California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 90 P.3d 116, 122 (2004).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terry’s motion to alter or amend the judgment because Terry failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for granting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

Appellee Young’s request to strike settlement documents attached to Terry’s filings, set forth in his answering brief, is granted. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to strike Exhibit 1 to Docket Entries 10,12, and 29 because all three of the exhibits contain confidential settlement information.

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