T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) . NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WI L L I AM C AME R ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. E L I Z A B E T H R A N T Z ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35563 D . C . N o . 6 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 0 4 2 - D WMR KS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana D ona l d W . M ol l oy , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r21, 2011 ** B efo re: T A S H IM A , B E R Z O N , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M on t ana s t at e pri soner W i l l i am C am er on appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te i n d i f f e r e n c e t o h i s s e r i o u s me d i c a l n e e d s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T oguc hiv . Chung , 39 1 F . 3d 10 51 , 10 56 (9th C i r.



# FI LED NO V 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35563 2 2 0 0 4 ) , an dw e a f

f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr ant e d s um m aryj udgm e nton the ba s i s of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty bec ause C am er on fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al f a c t a s to w h e th e rd e f

e n d an ts w e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d if f e r e n t to h is c h r o n ic o b s tru c tiv e p u lm o n aryd is e a s e a n do th e rs e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . See R odri gu ezv. M a r ic o p a Cn ty . Cm ty . C o ll. D is t. , 605 F . 3d 703, 711 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( ade f e ndant i s e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty i f there i s no con st i tut i on alvi ol at i on ); T oguc hi , 39 1 F . 3d at10 56 -60 (di sc ussi ng del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence st andard); s e e al s o N e l s on v . P im a Cm ty . C o ll. , 83 F . 3d 1075, 1081- 82 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( “ [ M ] e r e a l l e ga t i on a nd s p e c u la tio n d o n o t c r e a te af a c tu a l d is p u te f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

s u m m aryju d g m e n t.” ) . C a m e r on’ s appe a l of

the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i ons f

orpr e l i m i naryi nj unc t i ve r e lie f is m o o t. Se e Mt. G raham R e d Squi rr e l v . M adi gan , 954 F . 2d 1441, 1450 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( w hen u nd er l yi ng cl ai m s have been deci ded, the re vers alof a deni al o f p r e lim in aryin

ju n c tio n w o u ldh a v e n o p r a c tic a l c o n s e q u e n c e s , an dth e is s u e is there fore m oo t). C am er on ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s, i nclud i ng tho se concerni ng al l eged ju d ic ia l b ia s a n dd is c o v e rym a tte r s , ar e u n p e r s u a s iv e . C a m e r o n ’s “r e q u e s t to in c lu d e s up p le m e n ta l a f f id a v it- d e c lar a tio n to10- 35563 3 P l a i nt i f f’ s ove r s i z e d br i e f

, ” a nd the r e l i e f

r e que s t e d the r e i n, f

i l e d on M ar c h 17, 2011, ar e de ni e d. AF F I RME D.